Monday
May 12, 2025
Home Blog

Defensive Shift Or Dangerous Regression? Eastern Europe’s Alarming Turn Back To Landmines

0

Alarming Turn Back To Landmines, five European countries – Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania- have initiated steps to withdraw from the landmark Ottawa Treaty, an international agreement that prohibits the use, production, and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines – a shift that has alarmed disarmament campaigners and human rights groups,

Citing escalating security concerns posed by Russia, the five nations- all of which share borders with the Kremlin-controlled state – argue that the 1997 treaty no longer reflects the current geopolitical reality. Their decisions mark a significant departure from decades of global progress toward eliminating one of the world’s most indiscriminate and enduring weapons.

Anti-personnel landmines, designed to maim or kill upon contact, have long been condemned by humanitarian organizations for their devastating impact on civilians. These weapons can remain active for decades after hostilities end, continuing to claim lives and limbs long after peace is restored. Since the Ottawa Treaty’s adoption more than 25 years ago, the use of landmines has declined significantly, and the treaty has been credited with saving tens of thousands of lives and reducing civilian harm.

However, the renewed sense of vulnerability along NATO’s eastern flank, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has prompted a reassessment among some of its frontline members.

Ottawa Treaty, Landmines, Baltic States

In March, Poland and the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania issued a joint statement declaring their intention to withdraw from the treaty. They emphasized the need to give their militaries greater “flexibility and freedom of choice” in response to the growing threat from Moscow, calling for a fresh evaluation of what constitutes acceptable defense weaponry in the current context.

In April, Latvia became the first to formalize its withdrawal, after its parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of the move. Under the treaty’s provisions, Latvia will officially exit six months after submitting its notice after which it will be legally permitted to stockpile and deploy anti-personnel landmines again.

Finland followed suit shortly thereafter. Speaking to journalists, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said that Russia represents a long-term threat to European security and that the decision to leave the treaty will allow Finland to adapt its defense strategy accordingly. “Withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way,” Orpo stated.

The announcements have drawn swift condemnation from international watchdogs. Amnesty International described Finland’s move as a “disturbing step backwards,” warning that it “goes against decades of progress on eliminating the production, transfer and use of inherently indiscriminate weapons.” The organization said the shift could endanger civilian lives not only in Finland but also in other potential conflict zones across the region.

As of early 2025, the Ottawa Treaty had 165 signatories. However, several major military powers – including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the United States – have never signed the accord, a long-standing point of criticism among disarmament advocates.

The decisions by these five European states come amid growing anxiety over what comes next after the war in Ukraine. While Western support for Kyiv continues, some NATO members fear that once Russia reaches a resolution in Ukraine whether through victory, stalemate, or negotiated settlement it may turn its attention elsewhere.

Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House and author of Who Will Defend Europe?, cautioned that Moscow’s ambitions are unlikely to end with Ukraine. “If and when Russia’s grinding conflict in Ukraine does come to an end by whatever means,” Giles said, “Moscow will be readying itself for its next target.”

For now, the return of landmines to Europe’s strategic calculations illustrate the broader unraveling of post-Cold War arms control agreements and a sobering reminder that peace and progress, once taken for granted, may now be giving way to hardline deterrence.

Poland and Baltics plan Ottawa Treaty exit, sparking fears for the landmine  ban's future | CBC News

Military Logic Meets Humanitarian Concern

As five European countries exit the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, defense analysts argue the decision is driven by urgent national security concerns in the face of a resurgent Russia. The move, while drawing criticism from human rights groups, is also backed by military logic that sees landmines not as relics of a brutal past, but as strategic tools in modern warfare.

“Nobody is in any doubt that Russia is looking for further means of achieving its objective in Europe,” said Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, in an interview. His stark assessment of the security environment captures the mindset driving these nations – Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania – to abandon a long-standing commitment to disarmament.

Giles emphasized that the military rationale for landmines is well-established. These buried explosives can slow an advancing army, either by forcing them to divert into more defensible terrain or by delaying their momentum while attempting to cross mined areas.

“They are a highly effective tool for augmenting the defensive forces of a country that’s going to be outnumbered,” he said, indicating their potential utility for smaller NATO countries facing the prospect of Russian aggression.

The experiences of the war in Ukraine, he argued, have likely reinforced the perception of landmines as a necessary evil. Russian forces have employed vast minefields along Ukraine’s southern front, significantly impeding the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023. The mines didn’t just slow military progress, they redefined the pace and strategy of the war.

According to United Nations assessments, Ukraine has become the most heavily mined country on the planet. Ukrainian government figures estimate that Russian forces have contaminated more than 174,000 square kilometers (around 65,637 square miles) of land with mines and unexploded ordnance. This poses an ongoing hazard to civilians, particularly in areas previously under Russian occupation and now back under Ukrainian control.

“The large-scale contamination of land by explosive ordnance has created an ‘invisible threat’ in people’s minds,” noted a February 2024 report by Humanity & Inclusion, an international charity focused on aid for communities affected by war and disaster.

“As a result, people’s movements are extremely reduced or restricted, they can no longer cultivate their land, and their social, economic, or professional activities are hindered.”

Russia is expanding its use of landmines in Ukraine but removing them is  proving difficult - ABC News

While international outrage has focused largely on Russia’s indiscriminate use of landmines, the issue is not entirely one-sided. A 2023 report by Human Rights Watch revealed that Ukrainian forces, despite being a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, have also used anti-personnel mines and received them from allies such as the United States.

Still, Giles was quick to note the critical difference in intent and design between nations. “There are very different design philosophies,” he said, pointing to a fundamental divergence in the way landmines and cluster munitions are produced and deployed. “Some countries are not concerned with civilian casualties- or may even deliberately seek to cause them. Others are trying to avoid them.”

This distinction lies at the heart of how Finland and other withdrawing nations are attempting to frame their decision. While they have opted out of the Ottawa Treaty, they maintain they will not abandon humanitarian principles in the process. Finland, for example, has pledged to use landmines responsibly, with a focus on minimizing civilian impact.

“Finland is committed to its international obligations on the responsible use of mines,” President Alexander Stubb posted on X (formerly Twitter), as the government formally announced its exit from the treaty.

Defense officials argue that responsible landmine use is achievable through strict protocols, including accurate mapping and documentation of minefield locations, educating local populations about mine dangers, and clearing or deactivating mines once hostilities end. These steps, they say, are critical to reconciling military necessity with ethical warfare.

Despite these assurances, critics remain unconvinced that any use of landmines can ever be truly “humane.” For organizations like Amnesty International and Humanity & Inclusion, the very nature of landmines—indiscriminate and enduring—makes them incompatible with modern humanitarian standards.

Despite these nations’ assurances that they will use the weapons responsibly, experts and advocates are warning that the decision could undo years of hard-won progress in reducing civilian casualties from these explosive remnants of war.

Landmines have a long and devastating history. They have killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians worldwide and continue to pose a significant risk long after a conflict has ended. According to the 2024 report from the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines and explosive remnants of war in 2023 alone. Shockingly, civilians made up 84% of those casualties, indicating the disproportionate toll on non-combatants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sudden Ceasefire Declared Between India And Pakistan Amid Escalating Hostilities—US Claims Role In Brokered Truce, India Rejects! But Will It Hold?

0

In a sudden development, India and Pakistan announced an immediate ceasefire on Saturday, putting a temporary halt to the most intense cross-border hostilities witnessed in decades. The announcement came amidst spiraling retaliatory strikes and mounting fears of a full-blown military confrontation in the subcontinent.

The truce, declared shortly after 5:00 PM IST, followed four days of sustained conventional strikes targeting military installations deep within both nations’ territories. Though the situation on the ground remains volatile, the ceasefire has averted, for now, the possibility of an uncontrolled escalation between the South Asian rivals.

Donald Trump, Ceasefire, India, Pakistan

Hello, It’s Me!

Adding to the geopolitical intrigue, US President Donald Trump was the first to publicly claim credit for brokering the ceasefire via a post on his Truth Social platform. Trump announced, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to confirm that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.” He further lauded the leadership of both nations for “using common sense and great intelligence.”

Soon after, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio corroborated Trump’s statement, asserting that American diplomatic efforts, particularly those led by himself and Vice President JD Vance, were instrumental in bringing both sides to the table. According to Rubio, the agreement included not just cessation of hostilities, but also a tentative proposal to initiate broader talks on regional stability at a neutral venue.

However, the details emerging from New Delhi sharply contrasts with Washington’s self-congratulatory tone.

India Acknowledges Ceasefire, Rejects External Mediation
India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed the ceasefire as a mutually agreed bilateral step but explicitly downplayed any direct role played by the United States. The Ministry’s brief statement maintained that the cessation of hostilities was “arrived at through direct communication between the two nations’ military channels,” and emphasized that there was “no agreement” regarding any forthcoming diplomatic dialogue.

Strategic observers see India’s posture as consistent with its longstanding opposition to third-party mediation, particularly on issues involving sovereignty and territorial integrity. New Delhi has historically maintained that all outstanding disputes with Islamabad, including Kashmir, must be resolved bilaterally.

Pakistan Welcomes Washington’s “Decisive Role”
By contrast, Pakistan’s government openly acknowledged and welcomed the role of the United States. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked President Trump and his team for their “leadership and proactive efforts to de-escalate regional tensions.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources, the truce was in jeopardy until the eleventh hour, with US negotiators stepping in to bridge gaps in trust and communication.

This divergence in attribution once again reflects the larger strategic orientations of both nations, India as a rising global power wary of foreign involvement, and Pakistan as a security-dependent state often seeking international mediation to spotlight the Kashmir issue.

Pakistan 'moving troops to forward areas', India carries out 'precision  attacks on military targets' | India News - The Indian Express

Flashpoints Prior to Ceasefire
The ceasefire announcement came against the backdrop of an intense exchange of firepower between the two militaries. Early Saturday morning, Islamabad accused the Indian Air Force of launching precision strikes on military facilities in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and near Islamabad. The Pakistani military said responded with retaliatory air and ground-based strikes targeting Indian assets in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Line of Control (LoC), often described as the most militarized border in the world, lit up with sustained artillery duels, rocket barrages, and drone incursions over the past four days. Civilian casualties have been reported on both sides, although precise numbers remain unverified amid a fog of war and heavy disinformation.

In perhaps the most politically charged moment of the conflict, Islamabad claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets. New Delhi denied any losses.

American Intervention, Reluctance Turned Into Sudden Engagement?
Until late last week, the White House had maintained a cautious distance from the unfolding crisis. Vice President JD Vance had gone on record stating the conflict was “fundamentally none of our business.” However, by Friday, alarming intelligence reports—likely involving satellite surveillance and SIGINT intercepts, appear to have galvanized a shift in the US position.

According to sources within the State Department, Rubio and Vance engaged in a flurry of high-level communications with both Indian and Pakistani defence establishments in a bid to forestall further escalation. The Americans reportedly warned that the window for diplomacy was closing rapidly.

While the United States may have succeeded in pressing for an immediate cessation of hostilities, analysts warn that tactical de-escalation does not equate to strategic resolution.

Are India-Pakistan At War? If Yes, Who Will Declare It? | Explained - News18

A Fragile Truce with Questionable Durability
Even as the ceasefire came into effect, reports of fresh violations began to surface. Explosions were heard in Srinagar and Jammu late Saturday evening, and Indian officials accused Pakistan of “continuing provocations and ceasefire breaches.” Pakistan, meanwhile, alleged that Indian artillery targeted civilian areas near Muzaffarabad.

India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, in a late-night briefing, warned that “any further aggression will invite calibrated and proportionate responses,” illustrating the tenuous nature of the ceasefire.

Moreover, the broader bilateral fallout remains unresolved. Both nations have suspended trade ties, withdrawn diplomatic envoys, and paused cooperation on key agreements, including water-sharing under the Indus Waters Treaty; whether these moves will be reversed remains uncertain.

Defence analysts caution that while ceasefires can create space for dialogue, they cannot substitute for meaningful political engagement. As long as the Kashmir dispute festers unresolved, the cycle of provocation and retaliation may well resume.

The Last Bit, A Pause?
The so-called “Trump truce,” while sudden, is unlikely to hold unless accompanied by sustained backchannel diplomacy and a shift in strategic calculus on Pakistan’s sides. For now, the guns have fallen silent but history suggests that without structural remedies and mutual trust-building, the ceasefire may merely serve as an intermission in yet another chapter of Indo-Pak hostilities.

As with all such military stand-downs, time will tell whether Pakistan turns a new leaf or  merely a temporary reprieve.

China-Russia Alliance Grows But What Is Putin Really After? Russia’s Ambitions May Lie Elsewhere

0

China-Russia have pledged to further cement their “no limits” strategic partnership, issuing a joint statement on Thursday that strongly criticised the United States and its allies while reaffirming shared historical narratives around World War II.

The statement, released during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow for the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War—marked in Russia on 9 May as Victory Day, is indicative of the two nations’ alignment on global issues and mutual resistance to what they describe as Western hegemony.

Xi, on his 11th visit to Russia since 2013, held nearly four hours of talks with President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders hailed their personal rapport and strategic coordination, with Putin confirming plans to visit China in the autumn for commemorations of Japan’s surrender in the Pacific theatre.

In one of their strongest joint condemnations of the US to date, the two powers accused Washington of attempting to reshape the post-war international order.

“Certain countries … are attempting to tamper with the results of the victory of the Second World War,” the statement said, alluding to perceived Western revisionism.

It further charged the United States and its allies with advancing NATO’s reach into the Asia-Pacific and pursuing the “Indo-Pacific strategy” to contain China and Russia through regional alliances.

The leaders also jointly opposed the use of “unilateral coercive measures” such as sanctions that bypass the UN Security Council, arguing such actions violate the UN Charter and undermine global stability.

Amid escalating trade tensions between China and the US, and Western pressure on Russia to engage in peace talks over Ukraine, the statement presented a united front against what both leaders called an increasingly aggressive and destabilising Western posture.

Xi also reiterated Beijing’s historical claim over Taiwan, describing World War II as marking the “return” of the island to China. The statement affirmed Moscow’s support for China’s reunification efforts, with Russia backing “the measures taken by the Chinese government to safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

While the two countries maintain that their partnership is not a military alliance, their growing defence cooperation has raised alarm in Western capitals. In 2024 alone, China and Russia conducted 14 joint military exercises, signalling deepening coordination in strategic domains.

Putin's Victory Day guests at Red Square parade will include China's Xi /China-Russia

For the first time since 2015, a Chinese honour guard will participate in Russia’s Victory Day parade, a symbolic gesture of the countries’ growing alignment in both military and ideological spheres.

Western assessments of Russia’s geopolitical posture often fall into reductive patterns casting Moscow as either a fading power clinging to influence through aggression or as a junior partner increasingly dependent on China. But such directions fail to capture the longer-term strategic calculus underpinning the Kremlin’s actions, particularly across its southern and eastern peripheries.

The dominant discourse continues to frame Russia as a threat to the liberal international order, its economy in decline, and its foreign policy reduced to reactive maneuvers in Ukraine or subordination to Beijing. However, this overlooks the broader spatial and historical logic that guides Moscow’s external engagements.

To understand Russia’s current trajectory, it is necessary to move beyond short-term crises and instead examine its evolving infrastructure strategy, geographic priorities, and long-term quest for geopolitical resilience.

Strategic Depth Beyond Ukraine
Despite speculation about a future ceasefire or diplomatic settlement in Ukraine, the Kremlin is likely to continue deepening its footprint across adjacent regions.

President Vladimir Putin’s outreach across Russia’s southern and eastern corridors is not a recent pivot but part of a longer strategic orientation. His “Look East” policy, formally introduced in 2012, preceded both the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That same year, Russia enacted the Federal Law defining the scope of the Northern Sea Route, an Arctic maritime passage intended to reframe Moscow’s access to global trade networks and reduce dependence on chokepoints like the Suez Canal.

Parallel to the Arctic strategy is the Kremlin’s drive to operationalize the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) – a 7,200-kilometer multimodal trade route linking Russia to India via Iran. The INSTC holds both economic and geostrategic significance, offering Russia a sanctions-resilient supply chain and a southward vector of connectivity outside the purview of Western-controlled maritime routes.

Trade between Russia, Africa reached $18 billion in 2022: Vladimir Putin |  World News - Business Standard

Eastern Expansion and Infrastructure as Strategy
Russia’s engagements with China are similarly framed less by dependency and more by infrastructural pragmatism. Cross-border trade continues to surge, supported by expanded logistical corridors: modernised Far East ports, trans-Siberian pipelines, and rail links through Mongolia into the broader Asia-Pacific. These projects are not merely about commerce, they reflect a concerted effort to reshape the flow of goods, energy, and influence across Eurasia.

As scholar Nicola P. Contessi notes, infrastructure dictates access, and access, in turn, shapes power. For the Kremlin, creating alternative corridors is not just an economic imperative but a geopolitical one. Infrastructure allows Russia to influence contract attribution, resource extraction, and even the military utility of neighboring territories.

Rethinking Russia’s Near Abroad
Rather than being dictated solely by present conflicts or external alliances, Moscow’s approach is anchored in a longer arc of strategic depth. The regions to Russia’s south and east are increasingly central to its vision of multipolarity, spaces where the Kremlin seeks not only to project influence but to secure enduring autonomy from Western pressure.

In this context, the growing military, energy, and logistical coordination with countries like China and Iran should be seen not as evidence of over-reliance, but as efforts to construct a parallel architecture of power, one that offers Russia both leverage and insulation in an evolving global order

Putin’s Southern and Eastern Gambit: A Broader Vision of Geostrategic Realignment

As the West continues to focus on Russia’s confrontation with NATO and its deepening ties with Beijing, a more nuanced reality is taking shape beneath the surface.

President Vladimir Putin’s strategy is not confined to the theatre of Ukraine or a pivot toward China, it is anchored in a broader effort to reorient Russia’s geopolitical posture through strategic infrastructure, maritime access, and regional influence across Eurasia. At the core of this shift is a sharpened southern and eastern vector of engagement – both built on long-term planning rather than tactical necessity.

The Southern Vector: A Maritime and Inland Network Recast
Russia’s south-facing strategy centers on three key maritime zones – the Caspian, Azov, and Black Seas – interlinked through what Moscow terms the Unified Deep-Water System of European Russia (UDWS). At the heart of this system lies the Volga-Don Canal, a critical artery that connects these seas and facilitates inland maritime movement across European Russia.

The strategic significance of this system was reinforced at an April 10 meeting in Tolyatti, chaired by Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council and a long-time confidante of Putin. The session, held under the auspices of the Russian Maritime Collegium, focused on enhancing the integration of Russia’s railway network with river ports along the UDWS. The goal: to streamline logistics supporting the North-South Transport Corridor, a top priority in Russia’s bid to bypass traditional Western trade routes.

Patrushev’s presence was more than ceremonial. While his portfolio includes maritime policy, his prominent role in post-Ukraine strategic recalibration lends weight to the meeting’s subtext: Russia is accelerating its southern corridor infrastructure not merely for trade, but as a foundation for geopolitical maneuverability. The North-South axis, running from Russia to India via Iran, is emerging as a strategic hedge against maritime chokepoints and Western sanctions alike.

Growing Russia-China Economic and Military Ties Better for War Than for  Business

The Eastern Drive: China and Beyond
In the east, Russia is adopting a calibrated dual-track strategy. While deepening economic integration with China, its largest trade partner, Moscow is simultaneously cultivating independent channels of influence across Asia. This approach is reflected in both domestic and cross-border infrastructure development.

Take the Rasht-Astara railway in Iran, a critical link in the North-South corridor. In response to a query in April, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk confirmed that Russian specialists were already operational on the ground in Iran – signaling not only a commitment to the project’s acceleration, but Russia’s broader southward entrenchment. Days later, Overchuk spoke at the Federation Council about the corridor’s potential extension into Afghanistan and Pakistan, casting the initiative as a gateway to “Greater Eurasia and the Global South.”

The Kremlin’s eastward ambitions are also venturing into Africa. On April 9, Russian Deputy Transport Minister Dmitry Zverev met with Sudanese Ambassador Mohammed Siraj to discuss bilateral cooperation on infrastructure. Sudan, for its part, extended an invitation to Russia to participate in key railway and road projects – suggesting a growing appetite for Moscow’s presence beyond its immediate periphery.

Soft Power on the Steppes
Alongside these hard infrastructure plays, Russia is recalibrating its soft power strategy in Central Asia. On March 28, Yevgeny Primakov, head of Rossotrudnichestvo—Russia’s external cultural agency, announced a shift in focus toward educational and cultural outreach within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Speaking at a Sputnik Uzbekistan briefing, Primakov emphasized that the agency is retooling its efforts toward “international development,” particularly targeting Uzbekistan and neighboring states. This illustrates Moscow’s intent to shape regional identity and loyalties through narrative control and cultural influence.

The China Equation: Cooperation With Caution
Despite frequent assertions in Western circles of Russian subservience to Beijing, the China-Russia relationship remains complex and pragmatically transactional. Trade between the two countries surged to $250 billion in 2023, up from $147 billion in 2021. Yet this rapid growth masks deeper anxieties within Russian business circles, many of whom remain wary of China’s long-term strategic intentions. Putin may be leaning on China, but he is also building firebreaks.

Rather than dependence, the relationship reveals an asymmetric interdependence—where economic cooperation serves immediate needs, while long-term hedging continues quietly in the background. The signal from the Kremlin is increasingly clear: China is a partner of convenience, not inevitability.

Russia’s southern and eastern strategies reveal a leadership thinking beyond today’s battlefields. Moscow is laying the groundwork for a multipolar future in which Russia is not merely a spoiler of Western designs, nor a junior partner to China, but a sovereign actor crafting its own corridors of power across Eurasia and beyond.

India and Russia: friends for a reason, friends for a season | Lowy  Institute

Southern and Eastern Neighbors Welcome a Strong Russia

India, the United Arab Emirates, Turkiye, and China notably declined to align with the West in condemning Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In 2023, Russia exported nearly half of its oil and petroleum products to China. India has also emerged as a major consumer of Russian oil, by 2024, roughly 35 percent of its total crude oil imports came from Russia.

In Central Asia, despite a gradual pushback against the Russian language and Soviet-era influences, Russia remains a key player, economically, politically, and in terms of regional security. China may be expanding its influence in the region, but Russian involvement, especially in trade and transport policy, appears to be growing in major economies like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Most notably, Tashkent has repeatedly invited Moscow, first in 2018, and again in 2022, to participate in the Trans-Afghan Railway project. In early April 2025, the transport ministries of Russia and Uzbekistan, along with their national railway operators, began preparations for a feasibility study. Two key routes are being considered:

Route 1: Termez to Naibabad, Logar, and Kharlachi.

Route 2: Mazar-i-Sharif to Herat, Dilaram, Kandahar, and Chaman.

Meanwhile, Kazakhstan is engaged in talks with Russia to develop a strategic transit corridor linking Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, a potential game-changer for both energy relations and overland trade.

The Last Bit

As U.S. President Donald Trump re-engages in negotiations with Putin and Europe scrambles to fortify its defenses, it’s time for Western diplomats to zoom out and revisit their playbook. An honest and urgent reassessment of the sanctions regime is overdue.

Putin has spent over a decade preparing for sanctions and, while Russia suffers from inflation, high interest rates, and labor shortages, the country has outperformed expectations. In 2023, Russia’s economy grew by 3.6 percent, and this growth continued into 2024. Key Russian industries benefit from state-subsidized loans at artificially low interest rates, giving them a shield against external financial pressure.

Western policymakers must craft a more nuanced strategy that takes into account Russia’s evolving security interests not only in Europe but also across the southern and eastern flanks—where Moscow is actively reshaping its sphere of influence.

There are several steps the West can take:

Step up defenses in the gray zone – the murky space between peace and war.

Impose targeted sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet and offshore holding companies with potential Kremlin ties.

Closely monitor and disrupt covert Russian influence operations that destabilize markets or seek economic monopolies in neighboring states.

Deploy regional task forces of experts who can offer real-time, contextualized insights to diplomats and policymakers.

This won’t be easy. As the U.S. increasingly adopts a go-it-alone approach, its interests may diverge from those of the U.K. and EU. Meanwhile, Moscow will likely respond in kind, advancing its southern and eastern strategies while watching the West’s every move.

To counterbalance Russia’s rise, the West must maintain open channels and build influence in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. But without the cooperation of key swing countries like India, China, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, any attempt to contain Putin’s “transformed Russia” will remain incomplete.

 

 

 

 

After Pakistan Strikes, India Responds With Drones And Naval Front Reopens After Decades. India-Pakistan Jet Battle Captivates Global Militaries And Trump’s Silence Speaks Volumes

0

In response to Pakistan’s attempted coordinated assault the previous night on 14 Indian military installations using a barrage of drones and missiles, the Indian Armed Forces launched precision strikes early Thursday on multiple high-value military targets deep within Pakistani territory.

Among the key targets were advanced Chinese-origin HQ-9 air defence systems positioned near Lahore and Multan, according to senior defence officials familiar with the operation. This marks a strategic shift from India’s traditional counter-terror posturing to a direct military-on-military confrontation—an inflection point between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The retaliatory action came  Targeted locations included major military hubs in Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan, with cities like Srinagar, Chandigarh, and Bhuj in the crosshairs. India’s integrated air defence command swiftly neutralised the incoming threats, with dozens of drones and missiles intercepted mid-air. Defence sources confirmed that debris is being recovered and analysed for forensic and intelligence assessment.

In the aerial engagement, one Pakistani fighter aircraft is believed to have been shot down by Indian defences.

India’s counter-offensive reportedly employed Harop loitering munitions – autonomous “suicide drones” – to strike forward-deployed Pakistani air defence positions. Significant damage was inflicted on Pakistan’s air defence architecture, including HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems supplied by China, which were allegedly used in the offensive targeting of Indian assets.

The Indian air defence shield, comprising indigenous systems, Russian-built S-400s, and Israeli-origin platforms, proved decisive in safeguarding critical military infrastructure across northern and western sectors.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh lauded the military’s rapid response, stating:

“The operations underscore the preparedness and precision of our armed forces, and their resolve to defend national sovereignty using state-of-the-art combat systems.”

He further confirmed that a high-value Pakistani airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system had sustained substantial damage during the strikes.

Indian Navy Strikes Karachi Port, Pakistan

Indian Navy Opens Western Front; Karachi Port Targeted for First Time Since 1971
In a strategically significant manoeuvre, the Indian Navy opened a western maritime front by launching targeted strikes on Pakistani naval assets near Karachi Port—an operation of this scale not seen since the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict. Explosions were reported late Thursday near Karachi’s southern dockyard and adjacent military infrastructure. According to naval sources, missile systems deployed by the Western Naval Command from Mumbai were used in the strike package.

The operation is reminiscent of 1971’s Operations Trident and Python, and signals India’s willingness to escalate on both land and sea. Widespread disruption across Karachi’s port zones has been reported, with signs of damage to key logistical and military assets.

India’s Western Fleet is on full operational alert in the Arabian Sea, with expanded deployments and sustained surveillance of maritime movements indicating readiness for further escalation.

Heavy Shelling Along LoC as Pakistan Opens Fire Across Multiple Sectors
On the land front, Pakistani forces initiated intensified artillery and mortar shelling along the Line of Control (LoC), targeting multiple sectors including Kupwara, Baramulla, Uri, Poonch, Mendhar, and Rajouri. Indian units responded with calibrated but forceful retaliatory fire. Exchange of heavy weaponry continued through Thursday evening.

The escalation follows Pakistan’s previous night’s attempt to overwhelm Indian defences across Awantipora, Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Kapurthala, Ludhiana, Adampur, Bhatinda, Chandigarh, Nal, Phalodi, Uttarlai, and Bhuj – utilising drone swarms and tactical missile strikes. India’s layered air defence system neutralised most incoming threats, significantly mitigating potential damage.

Maritime Tensions Rise: Overlapping Naval Exercises in Arabian Sea Raise Risk of Confrontation
In a further sign of deteriorating stability, both nations have issued Notices to Mariners (NOTAMs) for overlapping live naval firing exercises in the Arabian Sea. India’s drills will run from May 8–13, while Pakistan’s are slated for May 9–12. With naval assets deployed in close proximity and under heightened alert, the risk of unintended engagements or maritime incidents is considerable.

Despite the clear military escalation, New Delhi reiterated its commitment to non-escalation, stating that the strikes were “calibrated, proportionate, and limited in scope” in response to provocation from Islamabad. Indian officials added that further action would depend entirely on Pakistan’s conduct in the coming hours and days.

Business the Trump Way | Fortune

Why Trump’s Silence on the India-Pakistan Flashpoint Speaks Volumes
As India and Pakistan exchange military fire across land, sea, and air with precision strikes, naval bombardments, and drone swarms reshaping the strategic arena — one voice that traditionally would have boomed across diplomatic channels has fallen to a mere whisper –  that of the United States. More specifically, of President Donald Trump.

Historically, Indo-Pakistani hostilities have drawn urgent and visible American intervention, often behind closed doors, but always with unmistakable force. Not this time. With nuclear-armed states engaging in direct military conflict, and the possibility of escalation rising by the hour, Trump’s response has been alarmingly hollow – a few hollow platitudes and vague overtures that carry neither weight nor will.

His initial reaction, describing the conflict as “a shame” and vaguely hoping “it ends quickly” — fell far short of the moment’s gravity. A follow-up comment, offering help “if I can do anything,” was not a policy position but a shrug disguised as diplomacy. The White House has not announced any formal intervention plan, nor has it activated the full weight of American diplomacy.

There is no shuttle diplomacy, no high-level envoy dispatched, no Security Council initiative, no pressure campaign. Washington is watching – passively.

Behind the silence lies a larger strategic vacuum. The Trump administration has long signaled its disdain for complex foreign entanglements that don’t yield immediate transactional benefit. South Asia’s dense layers of history, nationalism, and military calculus offer no quick-win optics or lucrative deal-making opportunities. And so, a conflict that could convulse global markets and destabilize a volatile nuclear triangle unfolds without the U.S. at the table.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly conducting quiet backchannel diplomacy but without a broader framework, such gestures are little more than diplomatic footnotes. There is no serious de-escalation architecture in motion. And in its absence, the world is left with a gaping leadership void at a time when steady hands are in short supply.

The Trump doctrine, to the extent one exists, trades patient statecraft for coercive leverage – often directed at weaker nations and bound to transactional goals. Whether it was the attempt to mine rare earths from Ukraine or the unsettling propositions floated in the Gaza crisis, American diplomacy under Trump has been opportunistic, not stabilizing.

In the case of Kashmir, there’s no profit to be made – no resources, no trade windfall, no political optics to exploit. Just the dull, necessary work of diplomacy. Trump is not interested.

The contrast with past American presidencies is stark. Bill Clinton intervened directly during the Kargil crisis, compelling then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pull back from a near-nuclear edge. Even in 2019, after the Pulwama attack and the subsequent Balakot airstrikes, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo played an active role in defusing tensions. “The world [didn’t] properly know just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration,” Pompeo later admitted.

Now, with India targeting Pakistani military assets deep within its territory, and Pakistan vowing retaliation, the dangers are far from theoretical. Precision strikes have given way to cross-border bombardments, naval deployments, and airspace violations. Any miscalculation, any rogue commander, could tip the balance.

Yet, Trump appears unwilling or unable to assert the traditional role of the United States as crisis manager-in-chief. This is not isolationism rooted in caution; it is abdication masked as restraint. Experts like Tim Willasey-Wilsey of the Royal United Services Institute warn that the White House’s lack of engagement reflects more than just fatigue. “We now have a president in the White House who says he doesn’t want to be the policeman of the world,” he notes grimly, adding that Trump’s overt affinity for Modi and hostility toward Pakistan’s leadership further erodes any perception of American neutrality.

US election update 2020: How Trump don change di world - BBC News Pidgin

A Tilted Balance of Power: U.S. Realignment and Waning Leverage
Historically, the United States played a critical role in de-escalating tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad. From the Kargil War in 1999 to the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Washington served as a somewhat impartial actor with enough leverage over both nuclear-armed neighbors to coax restraint. However, that equation has dramatically changed.

Today, India is not just a regional player; it is central to the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at counterbalancing China’s assertiveness. This deepening U.S.-India relationship – encompassing defense cooperation, technological transfers, and intelligence sharing has created a diplomatic asymmetry. Washington is now visibly more reticent to criticize or pressure New Delhi publicly, even when crises demand impartial engagement.

On the flip side, Pakistan’s strategic utility to the United States has eroded. With the U.S. exit from Afghanistan, Islamabad’s traditional role as a conduit to the Taliban and a frontline state in the War on Terror has faded. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s growing reliance on China – manifest in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and expanding military ties—has placed it squarely in Beijing’s orbit, further reducing American influence.

As Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment rightly observed, the U.S. today is more invested in its strategic and economic partnership with India than in playing the old role of a neutral arbiter. The Biden administration, like its predecessor, is likely to choose carefully worded statements over assertive diplomacy, particularly in an election year with domestic preoccupations mounting.

China’s J 10 vs French Rafale - Which would win?

A Global Military Laboratory, A Case Study China’s J-10 and India’s Rafale Fighters
Meanwhile, beyond the geopolitical maneuvering, the military dimension of the current crisis is drawing sharp attention from global defense establishments. The aerial dogfight between Pakistan’s Chinese-made J-10s and India’s French Rafale fighters marks a rare, real-world opportunity for rival defense blocs to assess the effectiveness of advanced weaponry and tactics under live combat conditions.

Though confirmation of exact weapons used remains murky, military analysts globally are scrambling to extract operational insights. This confrontation represents the first instance where China’s most advanced missile might have been used in combat against the West’s premier air-to-air weapon, something defense planners in Washington, Paris, and Beijing are keenly dissecting.

Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies called it a rare “ground truth” opportunity. “You have arguably China’s most capable weapon against the West’s most capable weapon,” he noted, although the fog of war continues to obscure definitive conclusions. The live combat data – on missile evasion, electronic countermeasures, and pilot training – will shape the next generation of fighter aircraft and air-to-air strategies across continents.

For the U.S., the performance of the PL-15 reinforces the urgency behind developing its next-gen AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile. Similarly, European defense firms are revisiting plans to upgrade the Meteor’s propulsion and targeting systems. This live testing ground, inadvertently provided by South Asia’s long-standing conflict, has implications far beyond the subcontinent, it is effectively a live simulation for potential future conflicts in Taiwan or the South China Sea.

 

 

Trump Pressuring Ukraine To Give Up Land Is “Modern-Day Appeasement,” Biden Warns In Candid Interview

0

In a revealing and wide-ranging interview, former U.S. President Joe Biden delivered one of his most forceful public condemnations yet of Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach especially on the issue of Ukraine. Speaking from his home state of Delaware, Biden warned that the Trump administration’s apparent willingness to pressure Ukraine into ceding territory to Russia amounted to “modern-day appeasement”, a sharp historical comparison to the failed pre-WWII policies of Britain’s Neville Chamberlain toward Adolf Hitler.

Biden’s remarks come as Allied nations commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day, a fitting backdrop as he sounded the alarm over what he perceives to be an unraveling of the transatlantic alliance under Trump’s second term.

“You Give Him an Inch, He’ll Take a Mile”
On the question of peace with Russia, Biden was direct. “Putin believes Ukraine is part of Russia. Anybody that thinks he’s going to stop if some territory is conceded is just foolish,” he stated. The suggestion by Trump’s White House team that Ukraine should consider giving up parts of its territory especially Crimea and eastern regions currently occupied by Russian forces was met with sharp criticism from Biden.

Comparing these calls to the disastrous appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, Biden warned that making concessions to authoritarian leaders never ends with just one demand. “I just don’t understand how people think that if we allow a dictator, a thug, to take significant portions of land that aren’t his, that that’s going to satisfy him,” Biden said, visibly frustrated.

Does Anyone in America Miss Joe Biden as Much as Donald Trump? |

The Trump Doctrine: Appeasement or Realignment?
Trump’s foreign policy stance, particularly through Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appears to be pivoting toward a ceasefire that would freeze current territorial lines, essentially legitimizing Russia’s occupation. Vance went as far as to say that Ukraine and Russia would have to “give up some of the territory they currently own,” while Hegseth called any expectation of returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders “unrealistic.”

Trump, meanwhile, has maintained a publicly neutral stance, saying, “I have no favourites. I want to have a deal done.” However, he has also implied that Crimea is already lost and accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of obstructing peace talks. In Biden’s view, this isn’t neutrality, it’s complicity.

Cracks in the Alliance?
A major concern Biden raised is the signal such a policy shift sends to Europe. “Europe is going to lose confidence in the certainty of America and the leadership of America,” he warned. This sentiment echoes growing unease among European NATO members, particularly those bordering Russia, who may feel increasingly vulnerable if the U.S. wavers in its support for Ukraine.

“There’s strength in alliances,” Biden emphasized, noting that far from being a burden, partnerships with European allies ultimately save the U.S. money and enhance global security.

The Oval Office Showdown
The tension between the current administration and Ukraine reached a boiling point earlier this year when Zelensky was summoned to the White House for what turned into a highly critical televised meeting. Trump and Vance berated the Ukrainian leader for what they saw as insufficient gratitude for U.S. aid. Biden described the exchange as “beneath America,” pointing to it as evidence of how far the tone of U.S. diplomacy has shifted.

Joe Biden: Age, Presidency, Family | HISTORY

Reflecting on His Own Record—and His Exit
Biden was also asked to reflect on his own record on Ukraine. He defended the gradual escalation of U.S. support during his presidency, saying, “We gave them everything they needed to provide for their independence.” While acknowledging that policy evolved over time, he stood by his administration’s decisions.

Turning to his abrupt exit from the 2024 presidential race following a stumbling debate performance, Biden remained reflective but firm. “I don’t think it would have mattered,” he said about whether stepping down earlier would’ve helped the Democrats. “We left at a time when we had a good candidate.”

The decision, he admitted, was emotionally wrenching. “It was just a difficult decision,” he repeated, though ultimately, “the right one.”

Biden vs. Trump is a Tale of Two Americas
Contrasting the Trump administration’s brash and isolationist tone, Biden defended the state of the nation when he left office: “Our economy was growing… stock markets were up… our global influence was expanding.” In contrast, he questioned the flurry of executive actions and drastic federal cuts initiated by Trump, saying: “I’ll let history judge that. I don’t see anything that was triumphant.”

From proposals to buy Greenland to suggesting Canada be the 51st U.S. state, Biden said Trump’s foreign policy ideas are outlandish and fundamentally un-American: “What the hell’s going on here? What president ever talks like that?”

A Warning to the World
Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from Biden’s interview was his fear that the world is becoming desensitized to autocracy. “If Ukraine gives up land, NATO countries might begin to think they too must make accommodations with Russia,” he warned.

His closing message was  –  diplomacy without principle is not peace – it is submission. And that, Biden suggested, is exactly what the Trump administration is asking of Ukraine.

 

 

INDIA STRIKES BACK WITH FURY: Operation Sindoor Delivers Decisive Justice – 9 Terror Camps Obliterated Across Pakistan And PoJK. What Will Islamabad Dare To Do Now?

0

In an unflinching show of strength and precision, the Indian Armed Forces have launched a decisive retaliatory strike under Operation Sindoor, targeting and annihilating nine key terror camps deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK). The operation comes just two weeks after the cowardly Pahalgam terror attack that claimed the lives of 26 Indians and marks a clear red line –  India will no longer tolerate terrorism emanating from across the border.

Retaliation With Resolve. Precision With Purpose.

Executed in the early hours of May 7, Operation Sindoor represents the most coordinated, high-impact counter-terror strike India has undertaken since the Balakot operation, only this time, all three services of the Indian military – the Army, Air Force, and Navy – moved in unison. The objective was crystal clear: Neutralize the roots of terror, dismantle operational hubs, and send a message that India’s patience has limits.

Operation Sindoor: India strikes deepest inside undisputed Pakistani  territory

Nine Targets. One Message. Zero Tolerance.

According to senior Ministry of Defence officials, all nine locations were confirmed hubs of terror activity affiliated with globally designated terror outfits Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Hizbul Mujahideen. These were not symbolic targets. These were operational nerve centres, training grounds, and launchpads for infiltration destroyed with ruthless precision.

The Arsenal of Accountability

The Indian Air Force unleashed Rafale fighter jets armed with SCALP cruise missiles and Hammer precision-guided munitions. Kamikaze drones – loitering munitions with unmatched lethality – eliminated targets with pin-point accuracy. Naval and ground-based intelligence enabled real-time coordination. Crucially, the operation avoided civilian infrastructure and Pakistani military installations, demonstrating India’s mature strategic calculus: Measured, focused, and deadly effective.

1:45 AM—The Night the Valley Rumbled, and So Did Islamabad

As Indian jets sliced through the night sky, the Kashmir Valley stood still. Loud explosions rocked Srinagar and beyond. Panic briefly filled the air but not from fear. From awe. From realization that India had acted not with words, but with might.

At dawn, the Indian Army’s official X (formerly Twitter) handle delivered the nation’s verdict:
“Justice is served. Jai Hind.”

The Targets: Nine Blows to the Terror Machine

–Markaz Subhan Allah, Bahawalpur (Pakistan)
JeM’s core command centre—home to Masood Azhar. Reduced to rubble.

–Markaz Taiba, Muridke (Pakistan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba’s founding cradle—birthplace of the 26/11 attackers. Erased.

–Sarjal/Tehra Kalan, Narowal (Pakistan)
Hidden JeM infiltration hub under a health facility. Exposed and eliminated.

–Mehmoona Joya Camp, Sialkot (Pakistan)
Hizbul Mujahideen’s school-based training site. Flattened.

–Markaz Ahle Hadith, Barnala (PoJK)
LeT’s staging post for Poonch-Rajouri operations. Neutralized.

–Markaz Abbas, Kotli (PoJK)
JeM enclave led by top commander Qari Zarrar. No longer operational.

–Maskar Raheel Shahid, Kotli (PoJK)
Veteran sniper camp—turned to dust.

–Shawai Nallah (Bait-ul-Mujahideen), Muzaffarabad (PoJK)
ISI-linked terror haven. Obliterated.

–Markaz Syedna Bilal, Muzaffarabad (PoJK)
JeM transit and advanced combat camp—with SSG links. Now history.

India launches strikes on Pakistan, Islamabad vows to 'settle the score'

Retaliatory Fire or Empty Rhetoric? India Awaits Pakistan’s Next Misadventure

In the immediate aftermath of India’s decisive and coordinated strike under Operation Sindoor, panic and political tremors gripped Pakistan’s power corridors. The Indian offensive which was swift, targeted, and unambiguously aimed at terror infrastructure – has left Islamabad scrambling for a response. And as the dust settles on nine smouldering terror camps, Pakistan’s sabres are rattling louder than ever.

The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Pakistan’s military mouthpiece, confirmed strikes on key locations in Bahawalpur, Muridke, Kotli, and Muzaffarabad. With uncharacteristic haste, DG ISPR Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry condemned the strikes as “cowardly” and accused India of hitting civilian areas – a claim promptly dismissed by New Delhi as a deflection tactic rooted in fiction.

“Let me say it unequivocally: Pakistan will respond at a time and place of its choosing,” thundered Gen. Chaudhry during a hastily convened press conference, even as he acknowledged casualties – one child dead and twelve injured. It was a predictable script, one India has seen many times before.

Retaliation Begins: Ceasefire Violated, Civilians Targeted

True to its old playbook, Pakistan resorted to immediate, if scattered, military aggression along the Line of Control. Ceasefire agreements were violated as artillery shells rained on Indian border villages, leading to the tragic deaths of three civilians. India, acting with restraint but readiness, responded with “effective and proportionate fire,” inflicting casualties across Pakistani positions. Exact numbers remain undisclosed, but military observers confirm multiple Pakistani posts suffered damage.

This sudden escalation at the LoC proves one thing –  when cornered, Pakistan retreats to chaos.

New Delhi’s Unflinching Message: Justice, Not War

Indian officials continue to stress that Operation Sindoor was not a declaration of war but a calibrated act of retribution for the Pahalgam massacre. “We struck with precision. No military or civilian targets unrelated to terrorism were touched,” a senior defence source reiterated. India’s posture remains one of calm resolve – a measured but unshakeable commitment to defend its sovereignty and citizens.

Meanwhile, nationwide security has been ramped up. Critical infrastructure, metro cities, and sensitive installations have been placed under heightened surveillance. Cyber agencies are actively scanning digital chatter for coordinated propaganda or sabotage attempts. Delhi is conducting simulation drills, preparing for any scenario.

Pakistan Army Chief Issues Fresh Warning To India: 'Any War Imposition Will  Face Strong Response...'

Pakistan’s Strategic Crossroads-  What Will It Risk Now?

India’s coordinated multi-service strike – land, air, and sea – has not just shocked Pakistan’s defence establishment; it has disrupted its strategic calculus. With nine terror facilities decimated, Pakistan now stands at a crossroads, weighing its next move.

Here’s what the road ahead looks like for a rattled Islamabad:

1. Military Retaliation: Risky, Limited, and Symbolic
Likelihood: Medium

Pakistan’s doctrine of “credible minimum deterrence” encourages swift retaliation. However, the Indian strikes—carefully avoiding civilian or military infrastructure, deny Pakistan a proportional military target without risking all-out escalation.

What we may see:

–Artillery duels and LoC posturing to placate internal audiences.

–Airspace violations or missile tests to demonstrate capability.

–More infiltration attempts in Rajouri, Kupwara, or Poonch.

However, with India’s demonstrated air superiority and political will, a deep incursion is unlikely. Pakistan knows the costs of escalation may be catastrophic and global sympathy is no longer guaranteed.

2. Diplomatic Escalation: The Perennial Victim Card
Likelihood: High

Pakistan has turned whining into an artform at the UN and OIC. This time too, expect a flood of diplomatic communiqués, emergency meetings, and staged outrage.

What to expect:

–Summoning foreign envoys to label the strike “unprovoked aggression.”

–Dramatic appeals to China, Turkey, and the Islamic world for statements of support.

–Pushing for a UN Security Council resolution – though success remains highly doubtful.

India, with its growing geopolitical clout and unambiguous evidence of terror origins, is well-positioned to blunt Pakistan’s attempts to internationalize the matter.

3. Asymmetric Proxy Warfare: Terror by Other Means
Likelihood: Very High

This is Pakistan’s most comfortable domain. It has long relied on non-state actors for plausible deniability. Following the 2016 Uri and 2019 Balakot strikes, Pakistan leaned into this strategy—and Operation Sindoor may provoke a similar response.

Anticipated actions:

–Fresh infiltration of heavily armed militants across the LoC.

–Sleeper cell activation in Jammu, Punjab, and other strategic zones.

–Cyber warfare aimed at disrupting Indian digital infrastructure.

–Coordinated propaganda campaigns to inflame internal unrest or discredit Indian institutions.

But India is no longer ill-prepared. Intelligence networks, both domestic and foreign, are already tracking chatter from ISI-linked groups. Counter-infiltration operations are ongoing.

4. The China Factor: Whispered Support, Visible Restraint
Likelihood: Moderate

Beijing is Pakistan’s “iron brother”—but also a global power walking tightropes in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and a faltering economic recovery. China may shield Pakistan diplomatically, but will likely avoid military entanglement.

Expect:

–Backchannel support, including satellite intel and logistics.

–Diplomatic cover at multilateral forums.

–Reinforced narrative alignment via Belt and Road allies.

However, China does not benefit from South Asia descending into war—especially not with CPEC hanging in the balance. Expect strategic caution rather than reckless support.

5. Domestic Diversion: The Blame Game Begins
Likelihood: Certain

Pakistan’s civilian leadership is fractured, its economy in shambles, and its population restive. An external threat offers a convenient escape from IMF conditions, political instability, and food inflation.

Likely outcomes:

–Crackdowns on dissenting media and opposition under the pretext of national security.

–Hyper-nationalist television coverage engineered to whip up anti-India sentiment.

–Accusations that India is behind any new wave of domestic terror incidents—real or manufactured.

But even Pakistanis are asking questions. Who let the terror camps flourish? Why were India’s fighters unchallenged? And why is the military, flush with funds, unable to defend its own borders?

Ready, Resurgent and Relevant Indian Armed Forces - Bharat Shakti

The Last Bit, India Has Rewritten the Rules

India’s Operation Sindoor is India’s response to no terror attack will go unanswered, and safe havens across the border are no longer beyond reach. Pakistan may rant and retaliate, but it must now confront a changed reality where Indian strikes are measured, legal, and devastatingly effective.

The question now is not if Pakistan will respond, but how long it can hide behind terror proxies before the world calls its bluff again.

 

America’s Unwavering Support For Israel Is Fraying, And The Cracks Are Now Impossible To Ignore!

0

For decades, the United States’ relationship with Israel was often characterized by near-unquestionable loyalty. From the historic recognition of the Israeli state by President Harry Truman in 1948 to the billions in military aid that have followed since, Israel could count on its most powerful ally to shield it politically, fund it militarily, and defend it diplomatically.

But that era of blind solidarity appears to be waning and a new chapter is being written, one defined not by total support, but by public scrutiny, political polarization, and a generational shift that is fundamentally reshaping how Americans perceive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Arc of American-Israeli Relations
The US-Israel alliance began in earnest in the late 1940s, not as an inevitable partnership but as the outcome of contentious debate. President Truman’s recognition of Israel, made in defiance of his own Secretary of State George Marshall, was shaped by post-Holocaust sympathy and strategic Cold War calculations. For years, shared democratic values, cultural ties, and a common adversary in Soviet-backed Arab states further cemented the relationship.

But it was the 1967 Six-Day War that fully transformed the alliance into a cornerstone of US Middle East policy. Israel’s dramatic military success repositioned it as a vital strategic partner in the region, an outpost of American influence amid Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. From that point on, Israel became the single largest recipient of US foreign aid, and American presidents – from Nixon to Obama – tirelessly backed its security while publicly pursuing the elusive dream of Middle East peace.

Popular culture, too, played its part. The 1960 novel Exodus and its Hollywood adaptation mythologized Israel’s founding for Western audiences, reinforcing pro-Israel sentiment among American citizens. The Palestinian story, by contrast, was poorly understood and rarely humanized in mainstream American discourse.

Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump

October 7 and the Breaking Point
The attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s devastating military response in Gaza, became an inflection point in this storied relationship. President Joe Biden responded with near-total backing, including $18 billion in military support and full-throated moral support for Israel. And yet, rather than uniting Americans around Israel, the war sparked unprecedented domestic opposition especially from younger voters and progressives, the very backbone of the Democratic Party.

College campuses erupted in protest. Demonstrators across cities labelled Biden “Genocide Joe,” outraged at what they perceived as complicity in mass civilian casualties in Gaza. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump leaned into hardline support for Israel, even suggesting the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza and threatening to deport foreign students accused of antisemitism – a stance that played well with his base but deepened partisan fault lines.

It’s a culture war now, and Israel sits squarely in the middle of it.

Polls Don’t Lie: America’s Changing Sentiment
Numbers show what and how it has changed – a March 2025 Gallup poll showed only 46% of Americans now sympathize with Israel – the lowest in 25 years – while support for Palestinians has reached an all-time high at 33%. The Pew Research Center found a similar trend: in just three years, unfavourable views of Israel among Republicans rose by 10 percentage points, with the shift most prominent among younger conservatives.

The generational divide is even sharper still. Among Americans under 30, a Pew poll found that more than twice as many sympathized with Palestinians as with Israelis. TikTok and Instagram have exposed this cohort to firsthand visuals of the war’s brutality, prompting them to challenge traditional narratives and question Washington’s role.

The implications are profound. As this generation ages and gains political influence, their disillusionment could begin to reshape actual policy, not just public opinion.

Biden’s Balancing Act
Caught in the crossfire of generational outrage and geopolitical obligation, Biden found himself in a bind unlike any president before him. His administration especially National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has publicly wrestled with the moral and strategic dilemmas: curbing Israeli military excesses while ensuring its security needs. But no balancing act can erase the perception that the Biden White House had prioritized alliance over accountability.

The political cost is already evident. In swing states like Michigan, Arab-American voters boycotted Biden, some even voting for Trump.

Trump to meet Israel's Netanyahu on Friday at Mar-a-Lago

What Happens When the Grassroots Turns?
On Capitol Hill, bipartisan support for Israel remains strong, for now but beneath the surface, a shift is undeniable. Organizations like the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv warn of the “danger zone” Israel now faces in US public opinion, driven not only by war fatigue but also by ideological drift. The rise of Israel’s national-religious right under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it harder for American Jews – especially liberals – to relate to the country many once considered a spiritual or ancestral homeland.

Even influential figures like Dennis Ross, a key Clinton-era negotiator, acknowledge the damage Trump-era politics has done to Israel’s perception among Democrats. If Netanyahu is replaced by a centrist government in Israel’s next election (due by October 2025), there may be a chance to reset. But the deeper forces at play – demographics, social media, polarization – won’t disappear overnight.

The Last Bit, A Fraying But Not Broken Bond
To be clear, US military aid to Israel is unlikely to dry up tomorrow. Strategic imperatives, deep-rooted lobbying, and shared security interests still bind the two nations closely. But a critical transformation is underway. The unquestioned support of the past is giving way to conditional, contested backing. What was once bipartisan is now bifurcated by political and generational lines.

In the long arc of US-Israeli relations, we may well be living through a hinge moment. Not a rupture, but a redefinition where values, not just interests, will dictate the depth and durability of the alliance.

And in that redefinition lies the future of America’s role in one of the most enduring and divisive conflicts of our time.

India’s Civil Defence Drill On 7 May, Is War With Pakistan A Step Closer?

0
NOIDA, INDIA - MARCH 25: Indian Army soldiers demonstrate their skills during mock drill and battle field conditions in front of the students on the second consecutive day, at Amity University, on March 25, 2015 in Noida, India. Army exhibited military weapon and equipments with an aim to motivate more youths to join defence services. During the event, soldiers demonstrated the diverse array of equipment, mock drill and stimulated battle field conditions. (Photo by Burhaan Kinu/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

India is bracing itself for a large-scale civil defence drill on May 7, 2025, spanning 244 districts across all states and union territories. The timing comes on the heels of a devastating terror strike in Pahalgam that took 26 innocent lives. While officially termed a “drill,” the exercise reveals a deeper resolve showing India is not just shoring up its military preparedness but mobilising its civilian infrastructure for crisis response.

Thus, this drill is a strategic move, reflecting a shift in India’s approach to national security where citizens play a central role in facing modern threats.

What Will Happen on May 7 – Sirens, Darkness, and Drills

According to a circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 2, this civil defence drill falls under the ambit of the Civil Defence Rules, 1968. The goal is to gauge and enhance civilian response capabilities in the event of wartime scenarios, particularly missile or air attacks.

Civil Defence Mock Drills Across India on May 7

Here’s what’s in store:

Air Raid Alerts in High-Risk Areas
Citizens in sensitive zones will hear the wail of air raid sirens, an auditory warning system meant to mimic real-time alerts during aerial strikes. The goal is to condition communities to respond swiftly and decisively in the face of airborne threats.

City-Wide Blackouts
Urban centres will experience planned power blackouts, an effort to simulate wartime darkness, reducing visibility for potential night-time attackers. The last time India used such tactics was during the 1971 war with Pakistan.

Mass Training and Awareness Sessions
Educational institutions, government bodies, and public spaces will host training sessions focusing on basic survival skills such as seeking cover, offering first aid, and maintaining mental resilience during high-stress situations.

Strategic Camouflage Exercises
Critical infrastructure like military facilities, telecom towers, and power grids will undergo visual concealment drills. These are aimed at making them less detectable from enemy satellites or surveillance drones.

Evacuation Practice in Vulnerable Areas
Mock evacuations will test the logistical readiness of local administrations. Populations in designated danger zones will be moved to safety, allowing authorities to assess real-time coordination under stress.

A Collective Effort Spanning Age, Geography, and Occupation

This initiative brings together a wide swath of Indian society, from district officers and home guards to student volunteers, NCC cadets, and civil defence personnel. It is a comprehensive mobilisation designed to instil a culture of readiness.

Not Just Nostalgia, Why these Drills Are Crucial?

While reminiscent of Cold War-era defence protocols, the relevance of such drills has grown in a world beset by hybrid warfare – cyberattacks, drone incursions, and precision strikes are now realities. Civilians are no longer mere spectators; they’re on the frontlines too.

Pahalgam Attack, The Catalyst

The drill’s urgency was undoubtedly catalysed by the Pahalgam attack, which shattered the nation’s sense of security. In its wake, Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired multiple high-level security reviews and vowed uncompromising action.

“We will hunt down the perpetrators and conspirators and bring them to justice in a manner that goes beyond their imagination.”
— Prime Minister Narendra Modi

 

Pakistan claims it scared off India's Rafale fighter jets- The Week
Upgraded Missiles, Jets, and Vows of Revenge After Pahalgam Attack Raise Stakes in India-Pakistan Standoff
The shadow of war once again looms large over South Asia, as the aftermath of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 Indian tourists, pushes India and Pakistan closer to the edge. While both nations have danced this dangerous tango before, most notably in 2019, experts now warn that the risks of escalation are higher than ever, and the battlefield, if drawn, would be vastly different.

Since their last major military standoff in February 2019, both India and Pakistan have significantly upgraded their arsenals, inducted next-generation warplanes, and diversified their strike capabilities – conventional and otherwise. The military chessboard has evolved, and the pieces are more lethal, more agile, and more likely to trigger unintended consequences.

India’s Growing Air Superiority and the Rafale Edge
Back in 2019, when India launched the Balakot airstrikes in response to the Pulwama attack, it relied heavily on ageing Sukhoi-30s, Mirage 2000s, and MiG-21s.

The lack of stealth, speed, and long-range missile capabilities left the Indian Air Force at a disadvantage, a shortcoming Prime Minister Narendra Modi openly acknowledged, suggesting that had India possessed the French-made Rafale fighter jets then, the outcome may have been decisively different.

Since then, India has inducted 36 Rafale jets into its fleet – aircraft considered among the finest in the world. Armed with Meteor missiles, which can engage targets well beyond visual range (BVR), and equipped with cutting-edge avionics and radar evasion technology, the Rafale now forms the backbone of India’s aerial strike capability. More are on order for the Indian Navy as well.

Pakistan’s J-10C: Beijing’s Response to the Rafale
Not to be outpaced, Pakistan has turned to its all-weather ally, China, for a rapid upgrade to its air force. Since 2022, Islamabad has inducted at least 20 J-10C fighter jets, a Chinese multirole aircraft often compared to the Rafale. According to military sources, the J-10Cs are equipped with PL-15 air-to-air missiles, which are roughly on par with the Rafale’s Meteor and represent a major leap in Pakistan’s aerial capabilities.

The J-10C and Rafale matchup could well be a preview of a larger technological face-off—between Western and Chinese defence ecosystems. And this battlefield could become a testing ground for unproven systems and doctrines.

Air Defence Upgrades: S-400 vs HQ-9
One of the most glaring exposures in the 2019 conflict was the lack of robust air defence on both sides. India has since plugged that gap with the acquisition of the Russian S-400 Triumf system, capable of detecting and neutralising multiple threats, including stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles, up to 400 km away. The S-400 is mobile, precise, and battle-tested.

Pakistan’s answer has been the HQ-9 air defence system, a Chinese adaptation of Russia’s older S-300 platform. While not as advanced as the S-400, the HQ-9 gives Pakistan a substantial defensive cushion especially when coupled with radar networks and early warning systems.

Drones | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Controversy, Warfare, Military,  Bombs, Missiles, & War on Terror | Britannica

Drone Warfare: The Next Frontier
While full-scale aerial dogfights remain a possibility, experts believe the more likely path of escalation lies in unmanned warfare.

India has turned to Israel and the U.S., acquiring Heron Mk2 drones and placing orders for MQ-9B Predator drones, which are known for their strike accuracy and high endurance.

Pakistan, meanwhile, has acquired the Bayraktar TB2 and Akinci drones from Turkey—systems that have demonstrated impressive performance in Ukraine’s war against Russia.

These drones allow low-risk, high-impact options, particularly for tactical strikes, reconnaissance, or retaliatory actions without risking human pilots. But they also increase the probability of miscalculation—a single drone shot down in the wrong place could ignite a larger fire.

The Missiles in the Shadows
On the sidelines of the escalating rhetoric, Pakistan conducted a test of its surface-to-surface ballistic missile on Saturday, with a range of 450 km, signaling readiness and resolve. According to Pakistan’s military, the test was a message: “The armed forces are prepared to safeguard national security against any aggression.”

India has yet to respond officially, but its capabilities are formidable. The BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, developed jointly with Russia, offers pinpoint accuracy at 300 km range. The Agni series of ballistic missiles, including Agni-5 with intercontinental range, cements India’s strategic deterrence.

Both countries also maintain a range of short and medium-range missile systems capable of being launched from land, sea, or air adding to the hair-trigger environment.

Nuclear Shadows and Strategic Calculus
Despite the war drums, both sides remain nuclear-armed, and while experts believe nuclear weapons would not be the first line of escalation, the risk is never zero.

That said, India’s 2019 strategy was seen as failing to establish a long-term deterrence. This time, says Tufail, India might aim for a more decisive strike, particularly with the Rafales in play, which increases the stakes and opens the door to uncontrollable escalation.

A Regional Powder Keg with Global Implications
While the United States has urged both nations to de-escalate, it is watching developments with unusual interest especially to evaluate China’s aerial warfare capabilities via Pakistan’s J-10C. As tensions flare, China’s presence as Pakistan’s military benefactor adds a new layer of geopolitical complexity.

India, for its part, must weigh how many of its air squadrons it can spare for Pakistan, given the ever-present threat along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China.

“It’s a dilemma for India—two fronts, both nuclear-armed, and both increasingly sophisticated,” says a defence analyst in New Delhi.

State of the IAF Fighter Fleet After Rafale Induction

The Last Bit, Why India Should Respond Strongly

The tragic attack in Pahalgam targeting innocent Indian civilians was a direct challenge to India’s sovereignty and internal security. While Pakistan continues to deny involvement, its long-standing pattern of harboring and aiding cross-border terrorism cannot be overlooked. A muted or delayed response would not only embolden Pakistan-based terror outfits but also signal weakness at a time when national morale demands resolve.

In 2019, India responded with a bold airstrike in Balakot, but the strategic message was diluted by the limitations in air capability and political caution. Today, however, the equation has changed. India has significantly upgraded its arsenal, with Rafale jets, S-400 missile systems, and advanced drones, and commands greater global diplomatic capital than before. It has both the tools and the legitimacy to act with precision and confidence.

A strong and calibrated response whether through drones, missiles, or strategic strikes would send a clear message: India will no longer tolerate proxy war under the nuclear shadow. It is not about escalation, but about deterrence. The cost of inaction is greater instability, greater civilian vulnerability, and a dangerous precedent.

India must act not for vengeance, but for justice, credibility, and long-term security. The era of turning the other cheek must end, and the message must be unmistakable: attacks on Indian soil will not go unanswered.

 

Israel Approves Gaza ‘Conquest’ Plan Amid Mounting Civilian Deaths And Aid Controversy

0

In a significant escalation of its ongoing war in Gaza, Israel’s security cabinet has formally approved a new military and humanitarian strategy that signals a deeper and more permanent military presence in the besieged Palestinian enclave. The plan, described by officials as a “conquest of territory and remaining there,” marks a shift from intermittent military campaigns to one of territorial occupation and sustained displacement of civilians.

The cabinet’s decision on Sunday came just hours after the Israeli military announced it would mobilize tens of thousands of reservists. This move, according to Israeli officials, is meant to strengthen the military’s operational capacity across Gaza, where violence has surged since mid-March following the collapse of a two-month ceasefire.

Mass Displacement and Mounting Casualties
The new war doctrine centers on displacing Gaza’s northern population southward, while Israel intensifies “powerful strikes” on Hamas positions. However, the humanitarian cost continues to soar. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, over 2,400 Palestinians have been killed since mid-March alone, bringing the total death toll since the war began to 52,535. These figures underscore the staggering toll of a conflict that began after Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israeli territory.

As airstrikes resume with ferocity, reports from rescuers in Gaza confirm at least 19 deaths overnight in northern Gaza alone. The situation on the ground continues to deteriorate with each passing day, amid fears that further escalation could devastate an already suffering civilian population.

Trump: No Right of Return for Palestinians in Gaza Under His Plan

A Ceasefire Dangled Before Trump Visit
Interestingly, Israeli officials hinted that the renewed military campaign may be executed in phases, leaving room for a possible ceasefire and a hostage release agreement ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to the region in mid-May. While Trump is set to visit Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, no stop in Israel has been confirmed.

The suggestion of a potential ceasefire timed with political optics has not gone unnoticed. Critics have accused the Israeli government of using military and humanitarian leverage as tools in broader geopolitical maneuvering, further complicating efforts to de-escalate the conflict.

Aid System Revamped Amid Blockade and Famine Fears
In tandem with its military plans, the Israeli cabinet also approved a new framework for delivering humanitarian aid into Gaza, a move that follows nine weeks of a total blockade that has drawn sharp condemnation from international humanitarian organizations.

The new mechanism, crafted in coordination with the United States, is intended to bypass Hamas and prevent aid diversion. According to a U.S. State Department official, the delivery system will be managed by an unnamed private foundation, and is designed to channel aid to Gaza’s civilians while placing strict controls to ensure it is not commandeered by Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

However, aid agencies and UN officials have swiftly rejected the proposal, warning that the framework fails to adhere to international humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. In a joint statement, several organizations operating in the Palestinian territories said the plan appears “designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items” and would likely fail to reach Gaza’s most vulnerable.

Internal Tensions Over Aid in Israel’s Cabinet
The decision to resume aid deliveries sparked sharp divisions within Israel’s own cabinet. Far-right ministers, Itamar Ben Gvir and Orit Strook, fiercely opposed the move, while IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir argued that Israel is bound by international law to facilitate humanitarian access.

An Israeli official confirmed that reports of internal disputes were accurate, reflecting the broader ideological fault lines within Netanyahu’s ruling coalition. Critics warn that such infighting is delaying critical decisions even as the humanitarian crisis worsens.

Videos of malnourished children show Gaza’s forced starvation crisis

Starvation as a Weapon of War?
International law experts and rights groups have issued grave warnings, accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war, a charge that, if proven, would constitute a war crime. The continued restriction of food, fuel, and medical supplies has pushed Gaza dangerously close to a man-made famine, exacerbating what humanitarian agencies describe as an already catastrophic situation.

Despite Israeli claims that cutting off aid is necessary to pressure Hamas into releasing hostages, aid organizations argue this strategy is inflicting collective punishment on civilians, many of whom are already displaced and impoverished.

Hostage Families – ‘They’re Being Sacrificed’
Meanwhile, families of Israeli hostages held in Gaza have expressed outrage at the newly approved military campaign, accusing the Netanyahu government of “sacrificing” their loved ones for political and military gain.

In a blistering statement, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum described the cabinet’s strategy as the “Smotrich-Netanyahu Plan,” named after far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The group said the aggressive push into Gaza endangers the lives of hostages and prioritizes conquest over diplomacy.

The Last Bit, A Region on Edge
With over 52,000 Palestinians killed and the humanitarian situation worsening by the day, Israel’s new conquest strategy and conditional aid framework have triggered alarm both domestically and internationally. As President Trump’s Middle East visit looms, the coming weeks could either see a pivot toward de-escalation, or a plunge into deeper, more entrenched violence.

How the world responds, and whether the proposed aid mechanism can be implemented without compromising humanitarian principles, remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the war in Gaza is entering a new, and potentially even more perilous phase.

As Xi Jinping And Putin Grow Closer, Is India Watching An Old Ally Drift? Can New Delhi Afford To Lose Moscow To Beijing—And Islamabad?

0

The growing bond between Putin And China’s President Xi Jinping has been a subject of many debates and even as the world sits up and takes notice of this growing camaraderie, so has India.

Xi Jinping will pay an official visit to Russia from May 7-10, during which he will hold talks with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and attend the Victory Day celebrations, the Kremlin said on Sunday.

“During the talks, the main issues of further development of relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction, as well as current issues of the international and regional agenda will be discussed,” it said.

The two leaders would sign several bilateral inter-governmental and inter-departmental documents during Xi’s visit at the personal invitation of President Putin, it added. Xi last visited Russia in October 2024 for the BRICS summit

Russia had invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the Victory Day parade, but it was decided that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh would attend the event. However, Singh is also set to skip the Victory Day parade and his deputy Sanjay Seth is likely to represent India at the event. The move comes amid increasing tensions between India and Pakistan over the Pahalgam terror attack.

Leaders of 20 countries, including Brazil, Venezuela and Vietnam, are expected in Moscow on May 9 for the Victory Day celebrations, marking the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Germany in World War II.
Russia, Pakistan, Putin,

Pakistan Runs To Russia 

Meanwhile, in the wake of the deadly terror attack in Pahalgam that claimed 26 lives, Pakistan has turned to Russia for diplomatic intervention to help defuse mounting tensions with India. Pakistan’s ambassador to Moscow, Mohammad Khalid Jamali, has formally sought Russia’s assistance in de-escalating the situation.

Speaking in an interview set to be published by Russia’s state-run TASS news agency, Ambassador Jamali spotlighted Moscow’s position as a privileged strategic partner of India while maintaining strong ties with Pakistan. He expressed hope that Russia could leverage this dual relationship to play a constructive mediating role, much like it did in 1966 during the Tashkent negotiations that helped end the armed conflict between India and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, on Friday, during his phone call with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged the two sides to de-escalate following the Pahalgam attack in the spirit of 1972 Simla Accord and 1999 Lahore Declaration which provide for bilaterally resolving issues without third-party mediation.

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also held a telephonic conversation with Lavrov, according to a statement by Pakistan’s Foreign Office. Dar apprised Lavrov of recent regional developments, the statement added. “Lavrov expressed concern over the situation and stressed the importance of diplomacy to resolve issues. He emphasised that both sides should exercise restraint and avoid escalation,” the Foreign Office said.

It is to be noted here that ties between India and Pakistan plummeted following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 26 people, mostly tourists, in the deadliest attack in the Valley since the Pulwama strike in 2019. India, among other punitive actions, announced the suspension of the 1960 Indus accord, which governs water sharing between the two countries. Earlier on April 24, Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to punish the terrorists involved in the Pahalgam terror attack and their backers.

Chinese President To Visit Moscow On March 20-22 Following Invitation From  Putin

The Russia-China Axis, A Complication for India’s Strategic Posture
The deepening alignment between Russia and China is perhaps one of the most consequential geopolitical shifts of the decadeand one that India watches with growing unease. Once the cornerstone of India’s defense and strategic ecosystem, Russia now seems to be tilting eastward toward Beijing, in a partnership that appears increasingly ideological, economic, and military in nature.

For India, the implications are manifold. First and foremost is the concern over India’s continued reliance on Russian military hardware, a dependency that stretches back decades – with Western sanctions isolating Russia and forcing it into Beijing’s embrace, New Delhi fears it could find itself squeezed if Moscow chooses to prioritize its newer, more lucrative alliance with China.

Moreover, as China grows bolder in its assertiveness, especially along the contested Line of Actual Control (LAC), the idea of Russia tilting toward a China-aligned worldview puts India in an awkward strategic bind. In particular, the possibility of a Russia-China-Pakistan trilateral dynamic—once unthinkable—is beginning to find subtle but undeniable expression.

For Pakistan, this moment offers a geopolitical opening. As India finds itself increasingly at odds with both Beijing and Islamabad, Pakistan is quietly leveraging Russia’s need for new allies and diversified partnerships, perhaps!

India, meanwhile, is caught in a delicate balancing act. On one hand, it remains committed to the historical legacy and strategic depth of the Indo-Russian partnership—one that has survived Cold War politics, economic liberalization, and more recently, divergent stances on global conflicts like Ukraine. However, New Delhi is also diversifying its strategic engagements – investing heavily in forums like the QUAD, strengthening defense ties with the United States, France, and Israel, and asserting its own role in multilateral spaces like BRICS, SCO, and the G20.

Yet these hedging strategies do not erase the foundational truth: India’s strategic comfort with Russia is no longer a given. As Russia edges closer to China, and by proxy, Pakistan, New Delhi must prepare for a future in which Moscow may not always side with Indian interests – especially in flashpoints like Kashmir or the Indo-Pacific.

From Moscow’s perspective, the balancing act is no less complex. While Russia is aware of the historical warmth and defense interdependence it shares with India, it cannot ignore the strategic and economic pull of China, especially in an era of Western economic isolation. At some point, Moscow may be forced to choose between maintaining its legacy friendship with New Delhi and embracing a new axis of power with Beijing and de facto Islamabad.

PM Modi, Vladimir Putin Discuss Bilateral Ties, Post-COVID World

When Modi Met Putin

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Russia last year, and the promise of greater collaboration and trade, was a crude reminder of India’s significance – not just to Russia and President Vladimir Putin, who welcomed Modi warmly, but as a balance to Western touchstone.

India is the second largest importer of Russian oil behind China. India assists Russia’s circumvention of international sanctions by allowing Moscow to pay with its own national currency for its trade with India.

But Modi has made sure India is also incredibly well integrated with the West along economic and security grounds. According to the European Commission, the EU is India’s largest trading partner, accounting for 12.2 percent of India’s total trade (China and the U.S. account for 10 percent each). According to India’s Department of Commerce, the EU is one of India’s largest sources of foreign direct investment, valued at nearly $108 billion by December 2023. But this is less than half of EU foreign investment in China and Brazil, which are both well over $200 billion. The EU and Indian trading relationship is ultimately in India’s favor, however slightly. According to the Indian embassy in Brussels, the trade deficit was valued at around 16.4 billion euros (around $18 billion).

The EU is not alone in turning to India to counterbalance an economic dependency on China. The U.S. Trade Representative stated that, in the year between 2021 and 2022, U.S. FDI in India increased 15 to 1. Trade totaled nearly $200 billion in 2022, with India exporting far more than the United States did.

India’s economic relations with Russia are not the same as its ties with the West, but they are still important. India is not without alternatives for rich friends and allies – Russia is.

Russia cannot replace China with India, and the recent summit was not an attempt to do so. For example, the $100 billion bilateral trade target Modi and Putin set for 2030 would be less than half the value of Sino-Russian trade in 2023 alone. What India has done for Russia is provide some breathing room.

From Cold War Brotherhood to Strategic Realignment
To understand the optics and undertones, one must revisit the deeply entrenched history of India-Russia ties, ties forged not merely through economic deals but through decades of geopolitical kinship. During the Cold War, India and the Soviet Union were near-ideological partners. India, although officially non-aligned, leaned heavily towards Moscow for military technology, space cooperation, and diplomatic support especially in forums like the United Nations, where the USSR’s veto power often shielded India from Western pressure on issues like Kashmir.

That trust didn’t disappear with the collapse of the USSR; it evolved. Post-liberalization, India began courting the West, but never quite dropped the Russian hand it had held since the 1971 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. Russian-made MiGs and Sukhois still fly in Indian skies. Indian nuclear submarines still partly bear Russian design signatures. Even the Kudankulam nuclear plant is a Soviet legacy reborn.

But as the 21st century progressed, so did India’s ambitions. And Russia, increasingly isolated after Crimea and now more so after Ukraine, began looking East.

The Shifting Sand
In the evolving geopolitical theatre, India has mastered the art of strategic tightrope walking and while Russia drifts dangerously close to China’s gravitational pull, India is pulling it ever so slightly back into balance.

The rise of a possible Russia-China-Pakistan axis, even if tentative, should not be underestimated. It could mark a realignment in South Asia’s security architecture, and India is right to stay wary. Unlike Moscow, which increasingly looks like the junior partner in its embrace with China, India retains its agency and, perhaps more importantly, its alternatives.

 

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
Best Wordpress Adblock Detecting Plugin | CHP Adblock