Terrorism in Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir: 15 vs 36 Years Ongoing

-

June 9, 2025

By: Chethana Enugula

Ukraine, USA & Russian flags: source Internet

When the Russia-Ukraine War began on February 24th, 2022, many countries were alarmed by what is turning out to be one of the top armed conflicts seen in Europe since World War II. Even after three years of the war, its effects continue to alter the global political situation, economy, and security arrangements. Many people have faced terrible outcomes, with many killed, numerous displaced, and cities reduced to ruins. Since the war continues and peace negotiations have not shown many results, questions emerge whether the United States of America (USA) can bring about a ceasefire in this situation. This piece analyses the prospects for the USA to act as an intermediary for peace, including past background, the difficulties of such efforts, relations with the world, and reasons for getting involved.

The United States has played an Important Role in dealing with Global Conflicts

For many years, the United States has worked to solve global conflicts as a leading country. After the Second World War, the U.S. took on the role of forming the liberal international order by building groups such as the United Nations, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank that worked for global peace and economic growth. Although most of the Cold War featured proxy wars, the United States, at times, helped settle many disputes. Because of the Camp David Accords (1978), President Jimmy Carter helped Israel and Egypt end their long-standing and deadly wars. In the same way, the Dayton Accords (1995), arranged by President Clinton’s team, ended the Bosnian War and started building peace in the Balkans.

American diplomacy has been successful when the country acted as a major mediator, supported by many powerful nations. Still, they point out that no two conflicts are the same. History, regional relationships, politics within the countries, and power all over the world are important in determining American influence on wars.

The Involvement of the USA in the Russia-Ukraine War

During the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States has made it clear to the world that it supports Ukraine. From the time the Russian invasion started in February 2022, the USA declared that the actions were both illegal and against Ukraine’s national sovereignty. Thanks to NATO and other Western countries, Russia was dealt with sanctions, and significant assistance in various forms was given to Kyiv. Because of this, Ukraine is not giving up and is able to keep fighting back.

For this reason, Moscow thinks of the USA as a debated subject in its foreign policy affairs. In Russia’s opinion, the USA’s main goal is to weaken Russian authority on important matters, including the economy and security. Due to this situation, Russia does not agree to any negotiations organized by the U.S. So, even though the USA has much influence over Ukraine, its role as a mediator with Russia has been severely damaged.

The state of the war at the Moment

Nowadays, the war has grown into a protracted struggle involving many casualties. Nobody has achieved total control over the region. Even though Ukraine, supported by the West, fights hard and can sometimes push back, Russia still possesses large areas in eastern Ukraine, for example, Crimea, which was annexed by Moscow in 2014. Many lives in the military have been lost on both sides. Ukrainian citizens are being displaced in significant numbers, and the country’s infrastructure has suffered huge damage.

It is important to note that Ukraine still depends mainly on help from the West in terms of money and arms. If the U.S. and NATO allies failed to support Ukraine with funds and equipment continuously, its strength would weaken significantly. Even so, Russian sanctions have been tough, but selling energy to China and India has helped them steadily improve the state of their economy. On the other hand, spending on war and being shut off from the world add to the country’s problems. However, neither government is ready to give up anything, which means it is very tough for them to reach a ceasefire agreement.

Problems with the American Mediation

Relations between the USA and Russia are now lower than they were during the Cold War. Ever since 2022, they have both exchanged ambassadors, stopped official conversations, and ended most joint activities. Negotiations about reducing arms and common concerns between the countries are no longer happening. Sanctions imposed by the USA are hitting some of Russia’s main areas of importance, and American-made weapons are fighting the Russian army in Ukraine.

In Russia’s opinion, the USA’s actions turn it into a participant in the war instead of a passive witness. Supporters of Russia treat any American peace offer as unfair. On top of that, America’s strong actions in both financial, military, and diplomatic areas exclude it from the role of neutral peace broker.

The USA has experienced political disagreements within its borders.

To begin with, Biden got support from both Democrats and Republicans for backing Ukraine. With time, U.S. politics is seeing more division as the war goes on. Certain members of the Republicans, mainly those on the far right, are arguing that the nation is giving out billions abroad when its domestic issues are not addressed. With time, more members of the public want the United States to focus on diplomacy and seek less involvement in world affairs.

The mixed determination of American leaders makes other countries question America’s position in the world. If there are changes in Congress or a new president, and the U.S. seems uncertain to help, it might undermine Ukraine’s trust and Russia’s spirit for negotiation. Therefore, politics inside the U.S. have direct effects on the country’s reputation in international affairs.

Is peace considered an interest or a result of international policies?

The country’s main strategy in Europe is to stop Russian growth, protect NATO’s solidarity, and reinforce the liberal rules-based system. In some instances, working for a lasting peace goes against some of these main goals. If the USA urges a truce before Ukraine agrees, it could look like abandoning a friend or allowing Russia to keep anything that it has occupied.

Equally, suppose the U.S. cannot negotiate or ends up giving military help for a long time without progress. In that case, the risks include making the war go on, suffering more injuries, and driving patience thin worldwide. Thus, the USA must manage its strategy, ethics, and diplomacy together, and this calls for both careful thinking and a long-range approach.

The need for unity among various countries

Since Russia is not fully open to U.S. engagement, working with other countries could be the best idea. Among Russia and Ukraine, Turkey, India, and China keep up friendly relations and are recognized for being more neutral. Certainly, Turkey arranged the deal that allowed millions of tons of grain to move out of the Black Sea region in 2022. Neighbours of Russia, such as India and China, are worried about the effects of the war on human lives.

The USA could support such efforts by giving diplomatic support, supplying money for reconstruction, or acting as a co-signer of agreements. The UN, OSCE, or G20 platforms allow the international community to host ceasefire talks in which all interested parties feel respected. The strategy would boost the legitimacy of the community and decrease claims that Western countries are controlling it.

Possible Ways for a Ceasefire to Happen

Sometimes, there are imagined situations in which resuming negotiations could make sense. If the fighting becomes too much for either side and they can’t keep up, they could agree to settle the conflict through talks. Yet, another situation could come up if war and economic sanctions create an internal crisis for either nation, since this could give rise to leaders who do not share the same beliefs.

Another danger is that the situation might get worse. If the war goes outside Ukraine, with an attack on one of the NATO nations, then all countries involved must do their best to prevent a wider war. As energy shortages, not having enough food, and inflation affect many, the international community may put more importance on ensuring peace. The USA can still get involved in these scenarios, regardless of taking the lead in the talks.

Ukraine’s Precarious Position and the Looming NATO Summit

Today’s geopolitical situation is characterized by various past influences and recent urgent crises that go above and beyond what has happened in the past. Due to the influence of the Trump administration, the relationship between the United States and Russia is still unstable. Nearly no economic trade takes place between the powers; instead, there is a strong sanctions regime that is the major foundation for their ties. It is most noticeable with regard to the Ukraine crisis. A confirmed event took place in early March 2025, showing that the U.S. paused military aid to Ukraine, making many people quite concerned. A deal was reached after important discussions between U.S. and Ukrainian officials that took place in Saudi Arabia, making the Kingdom very important for restoring the arms to Ukraine.

The documentary reveals that Ukraine’s situation is in great danger since it has not yet joined NATO. Even though some statements of support have been made, there is still no official invitation, and doubts about this alliance remain. Meanwhile, Russia holds firm in saying it considers Ukraine’s membership a serious security risk for its nation. Because of the situation, the NATO summit on June 24th has become very important. Choices taken at the summit will control how long the alliance will help Kyiv and how its policy will form toward Russia, both being crucial for worldwide security.

The U.S.’s Concern about Fairness

Having a strong international role, the United States is obligated to act morally. The conflict has caused as many as 14 million people to move away, left cities in ruins, and killed lots of civilians. The more time the war goes on, the greater its negative impact, mainly on the weakest people. With its resources and worldwide power, the USA ought to help stop the hardships that people face.

While it may not be able to make peace directly, the USA can help by assisting groups providing humanitarian aid, fixing basic services, and using reliable people to guide talks. An agreement that honours national boundaries and laws would keep America known as a U.S. nation for good.

Even though the U.S. plays an important part in seeking peace in the Russia–Ukraine conflict, it is a role filled with difficulties. The USA’s influence has made sure the country remains involved in helping Ukraine and leading responses at the international level. On the other hand, this deep loyalty to Ukraine makes the USA look like it is against Russia, which doesn’t want to involve the USA in settlement talks. Furthermore, disagreements in the United States create worries about their dedication in the long run, considering that the public and representatives are showing increasing apathy and resistance.

Therefore, the USA might not be the ideal choice for carrying out direct mediation. It should rather focus on giving support, using countries such as Turkey, India, or China to mediate between different nations. Getting involved in negotiations between countries by using the UN or OSCE and co-guaranteeing the agreements allows the USA to be significant without taking control.

It is not possible to achieve lasting peace if only one nation uses power. Everyone involved should be willing to cooperate, trust international law, and be ready to make compromises. America should keep its goals in check, as it should put effort into supporting peace, diplomacy, aid, and worldwide teamwork. A fair and steady end to the conflict can only be achieved after the monopolizing force.

The Drone Pact, Russia And Iran’s Silent Revolution Against The West. Geran-2 And The Ghosts Of Geopolitics!

By

-

June 9, 2025

Russia’s growing military friendship with Iran is more than a defense pact, it is in fact a sign of how the rules of warfare and global power games are shifting fast and at the center of this unlikely but strategic bromance – Drones!

Iran, once brushed off as a pariah state, has quietly become a drone powerhouse. Its cheap, reliable loitering munitions have gained a solid reputation across the Middle East. Meanwhile, Russia, strong on tanks, weak on drones, found itself outgunned in the skies over Ukraine. Enter Iran, which didn’t just send over some gear; it shipped entire production kits, shared blueprints, trained crews, and even sent its own specialists to help Moscow fill the gap.

From Tehran to Tatarstan, A Drone Factory Rises

The crown jewel of this partnership is the Alabuga drone plant, nestled in Russia’s Tatarstan region. Operational since 2023, it’s churning out thousands of drones based on Iran’s Shahed-136 model, which Russia has conveniently rebranded as the Geran-2.

According to a study, Alabuga’s evolution has been rapid and methodical – first assembling Iranian kits, then blending Russian and Iranian parts, and now heading toward full domestic production. The goal is – building up to 6,000 drones a year by mid-2025.

These drones are doing serious damage in Ukraine. They’re cheap, effective, and swarm in large numbers, perfect for overwhelming air defenses and hitting infrastructure, military targets, even civilian zones. The Geran-2 may not be fancy, but its loitering capability and strike accuracy have made it a key part of Russia’s evolving air game.

What’s In It for Moscow and Tehran? A Lot.

For Moscow, the benefits are immediate. With Western sanctions squeezing its defense industry, being able to make drones locally is a major pressure release. It lets Russia scale up faster, dodge import bans, and build a war machine that’s increasingly sanctions-proof.

And Russia’s not just sticking with the old tech. Word from inside Alabuga is that it’s now testing a jet-powered version – dubbed Geran-3 – which could fly faster and hit harder. Unsurprisingly, Iranian engineers are still playing a big role in this next-gen development.

Tehran, on the flip side, is getting a huge geopolitical upgrade. The deal signed in January 2025 gives Iran access to Russian military hardware, economic incentives, and most importantly, a stamp of legitimacy it hasn’t had in years. Moscow is reportedly throwing in advanced aircraft and missile systems in return for the drone tech. That’s a level of military exchange Iran hasn’t seen since before the revolution.

And the gains don’t stop there. Iran’s drone doctrine which is already tested in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, gets more validation and more reach. With Russian collaboration, the playbook for asymmetric drone warfare is going global.

How the Iran-Russia Axis Is Rewriting the Global Rulebook

This Russia-Iran drone alliance is more than just about Ukraine and is neat enough to changing the entire game. What we’re looking at is a new kind of global arms network, built by sanctioned states tired of playing by Western rules and it’s already rattling nerves far beyond Eastern Europe.

Iran’s drones have long been a headache for the West in the Middle East. They’ve shown up in the hands of Houthi rebels in Yemen and proxy militias in Iraq, sparking outrage from heavyweights like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Now, with Russia as a co-producer, these UAVs could get a serious upgrade and spread even faster across volatile regions.

Europe’s watching, too.

NATO is tracking Russia’s newfound drone muscle with concern, especially the increased use of swarm tactics. These cheap flying weapons are forcing Ukraine and its allies to sink big money into counter-drone systems, which are costly, complex, and not always effective. Basically, it’s a cheap offense versus an expensive defense, something military strategists lose sleep over.

What’s more, this alliance may be setting a template for others. Think North Korea, or any country on the receiving end of Western sanctions. The Russia-Iran playbook – sharing drone designs, moving production in-house, and dodging supply chain chokeholds could easily be copied. That’s a nightmare scenario for policymakers in Washington and Brussels.

But it’s not all smooth sailing. Behind the scenes, the Alabuga drone plant has its own cracks. Investigations have flagged harsh labor conditions, especially for young foreign recruits lured in with promises of cushy jobs. Instead, many are finding themselves in a controlled, militarized environment, under surveillance and pressure.

Then there’s the tech bottleneck. Despite all the talk of independence, Russia still leans heavily on imported components, particularly high-grade semiconductors and precision optics. Western intelligence has traced parts from downed drones back to suppliers in Europe and the U.S., showing just how leaky the sanctions regime still is.

And then there’s the ethical minefield. Loitering munitions like the Geran-2 blur the lines between combatants and civilians. They strike deep, often in populated zones, and don’t leave clear fingerprints. It’s perfect for gray zone warfare, conflicts with no rules, no frontlines, and no accountability. That should worry everyone.

When Sanctioned States Go DIY on Warfare

Hence, what we’re witnessing with the Iran-Russia drone pact isn’t just two isolated regimes trading toys, it’s the birth of a whole new military playbook. This partnership isn’t tactical, it’s transformational. It throws a wrench into the West’s long-standing edge in defense tech, and signals that sanctioned states aren’t just surviving, they’re adapting, evolving, and finding each other.

From cheap, swarming drones to local manufacturing under sanctions, this model blends military urgency with ideological defiance. It’s a formula that could easily travel to places like North Korea or Venezuela. And once the blueprint’s out, it’s near impossible to roll it back.

The Last Bit,

As the Ukraine war grinds on and the Middle East simmers with old fires and new flashpoints, the Iran-Russia axis is becoming a fixture, not a fluke. It marks a shift from unipolar dominance to multipolar defiance. The West may still have the better tech on paper, but the game is no longer being played solely on its terms.

Bottom line is that a new center of gravity in global conflict is forming, one shaped by necessity, nurtured by shared resentment, and weaponized through innovation.

Ignore it (other countries) at your own risk.

Diego Garcia: The Silent Engine of Power and the Echoes of Displacement

By

-

June 9, 2025

By: Ahana Sarkar

Diego Garcia is an island in the Indian Ocean, and for most people, it’s just a dot on the map. They’ve never heard of it and will never visit, and it seems like a dystopian parcel of land in most cases. But for the United States (US) military and its geo-strategists, this tiny atoll is a powerhouse, a silent force behind America’s global reach. From the Gulf War to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Diego Garcia has been an essential yet invisible part of America’s military might.

The United States has leased the island from the United Kingdom (UK) since the late 1960s, and it’s situated at a geographical sweet spot. Midway between Africa and Southeast Asia, it’s a hub for surveillance, rapid deployment, and deterrence. Here, bombers are prepped, naval vessels resupplied, and intelligence gathered far from the eyes of the world. But behind this strategic brilliance is a story of injustice that’s all too familiar in the history of empire: the forced removal of the island’s indigenous Chagossian people to make way for a military base.

Again, Diego Garcia isn’t just an asset; it’s a chess piece on the global board. Its location at the crossroads of vital shipping lanes and hotspots is crucial, and its remoteness is a strength, providing the United States with unparalleled security for its operations. Close enough to the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca, it allows for rapid response to crises while maintaining the cover of invisibility that America’s strategic ambitions often demand.

The base itself is a logistical and military marvel. The deep waters and protected lagoon are perfect for aircraft carriers and submarines; the airstrip can handle everything from B-52 Stratofortress bombers to cargo planes. Diego Garcia is not just a staging ground; it’s a launch pad for global action. During the Gulf War and the post-September 11, 2001, campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the island was critical, providing a secure and stable base from which operations could be executed without the messy politics of host-nation approvals or public scrutiny.

But this tidy narrative of strategic necessity can’t really erase the ugly truths buried beneath Diego Garcia’s surface. The Chagossians, forcibly removed from their homeland to make way for a base, are a ghostly reminder of the price of power. Their displacement, brutal, uncompensated, and unresolved, looms large over the island’s successes. As America continues to use Diego Garcia as a silent enabler of its global reach, we should ask: at what point do strategy and morality meet, and at what point do they crash?

To be very fair, Diego Garcia is more than a dot on the map; it’s the engine behind some of America’s biggest military operations. It rarely gets mentioned in public, but this remote island in the Indian Ocean has become the backbone of United States logistics and rapid deployment. Stockpiles of military equipment, munitions, and fuel are pre-positioned here so American forces can respond quickly to crises around the world. For aircraft and ships in the region, Diego Garcia is a lifeline, a place to refuel, repair, and extend their operational ranges without the logistical headaches of mainland bases.

After all, its isolation is its trump card. Far removed from populated areas and volatile regions, it’s a fortress of security. Its remoteness makes it less vulnerable to sabotage or missile strikes, a reliable and well-equipped outpost in an era where mobility and maritime power are the dominant strategic thinking. Diego Garcia isn’t just a base; it’s a launchpad for global influence. Time and again, it has proven itself. During the Gulf War, it was a staging ground for devastating air raids on Iraq. B-52 Stratofortress bombers took off from the airstrip and delivered precision strikes that showed the base’s reach and importance. Its secrecy ensured the missions could proceed unimpeded, shielded from the public glare and political wrangling that often accompany operations from allied territories.

After September 11, 2001, Diego Garcia was at the centre stage again. In Operation Enduring Freedom, it was a base for bombers targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. Its location allowed the United States to act quickly, without having to negotiate permissions or face the resistance of allied nations’ citizens. The same pattern repeated in the 2003 Iraq War. The island was a launch point for airstrikes and a logistical hub for pre-positioning weapons so sustained campaigns could be fought without overwhelming mainland infrastructure.

Despite its anonymity, Diego Garcia is the unsung hero of American military power. Its logistics, location, and isolation make it indispensable. But as its quiet contributions continue to underpin United States global operations, questions remain about the ethics and accountability of exercising such unchallenged power from an island shrouded in secrecy.

Diego Garcia’s role in modern warfare goes beyond launching bombers or being a logistics hub. Over the years, it has become a nerve centre for surveillance and drone operations, watching over vast areas of ocean and land. From counter-terrorism to maritime security and anti-piracy missions, it covers regions like South Asia, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East. But its real power is in something intangible: its operational invisibility. Unlike bases in sensitive political areas, Diego Garcia operates without the public scrutiny or backlash that often accompanies American military presence overseas.

In an era of great power competition, Diego Garcia has become the key to the United States Indo-Pacific strategy. It’s not just firepower but strategic positioning, allowing Washington to stay in the game in one of the most contested areas of the world. With China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean and its “String of Pearls” strategy, establishing ports and bases from Pakistan to Djibouti, Diego Garcia is the counterweight, keeping the Indian Ocean a theatre of competition, not domination. Plus, the United States’ “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” means Diego Garcia is at the heart of that vision. Its location gives it unmatched reach for surveillance and response quickly across key waters, from the South China Sea to the Horn of Africa. And its isolation means Washington doesn’t have to worry about the diplomatic complications of having bases on the Asian mainland, so it can act when needed.

But India isn’t forgetting Diego Garcia, which it sees as a rising power in the Indian Ocean. Worried by China’s naval expansion and ports in Gwadar and Djibouti, India has increased its naval capabilities and deepened its defence ties with the United States. Malabar exercises and logistics-sharing agreements have strengthened this partnership, with Diego Garcia at the centre of shared security goals. As India and the United States converge on their strategic priorities, Diego Garcia is the key asset in their joint effort to balance China.

In this great power game, Diego Garcia is more than a military base; it’s a statement. It reassures allies and partners of America’s long-term commitment to the region and tells adversaries loud and clear. As the Indian Ocean becomes a battleground for influence, Diego Garcia is the United States’ declaration of intent to shape its future. Diego Garcia is where geography meets power, tucked away in the Indian Ocean, where it sits at the crossroads of some of the most volatile and strategic regions in the world. Far from being a remote outpost, its isolation is an asset; the United States can monitor, intervene, and project influence without having to ask permission from host nations or navigate the complexities of regional alliances.

Plus, situated near the Strait of Hormuz, the Horn of Africa, and the Strait of Malacca, Diego Garcia allows for rapid response to threats in multiple theatres. This geographic advantage was critical during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where bombers and naval ships could operate seamlessly with minimal logistical friction. The island’s infrastructure is designed to be versatile, supporting everything from heavy bombers and surveillance aircraft to nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. The deep lagoon and extensive facilities mean it can be an airbase, naval base, and communications hub all at once.

But Diego Garcia isn’t just a powerhouse of military logistics; it’s a symbol of dominance. Massive stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, and equipment on the island allow for extended deployments, while pre-positioned ships mean the United States military can get into the region in days. But its strategic genius can’t wash away the stains of its dark past.

The price of Diego Garcia’s transformation into a United States defence hub was paid by the Chagossians, the people of the Chagos Archipelago. In the 1960s and 1970s, they were forcibly removed from their homes to make way for the military base. Families were split up, pets were killed (reportedly), and livelihoods were destroyed, all in the name of geopolitics. The Chagossians were dumped into Mauritius and the Seychelles with no support whatsoever, left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives, broken by colonial and strategic calculations. For decades, the Chagossians have been fighting for justice in British and international courts. The 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that the United Kingdom’s administration of the Chagos Islands was illegal was a big moment. The ICJ’s opinion, backed by a near-unanimous United Nations (UN) resolution, called for the islands to be returned to Mauritius. But despite international condemnation, both the United Kingdom and the United States have doubled down on their military presence, citing security over ethics.

This is the problem: in the global power calculus, strategic necessity trumps moral responsibility. Diego Garcia’s continued occupation is a contradiction for countries that claim to support human rights and international law. The Chagossians are in exile, their situation a reminder of the price of unchallenged power. As the world moves towards a multipolar order, Diego Garcia is more than a fortress; it’s a test of the great powers’ moral fibre. Can the United States reconcile its strategic interests with the changing norms? Can it maintain its power without addressing the injustice at the heart of its Indian Ocean base?

Diego Garcia’s dual legacy, of unmatched strategic value and unresolved colonial wrongs, poses a question that the United States and its allies can no longer avoid: Is enduring power truly sustainable when built on the foundation of unresolved injustices? How this contradiction is addressed in the coming years will shape not just regional security but the moral authority these powers claim to uphold on the global stage.

Pakistan’s Terror Networks and the Curious Case of its Global Funding

By

-

June 8, 2025

2

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

Pakistani terrorists, flag and dollars: source Internet

In the succeeding 24 years after India got independence and Pakistan emerged as a new nation in 1947, the two neighbours in South Asia went to war thrice with each other in 1947-49, 1965 and 1971, with Pakistan getting defeated in each of these three wars. In the 1971 War, Pakistan suffered a crushing defeat resulting in Pakistan being split in two nations with the emergence of Bangladesh on December 16, 1971.

Clearly, Pakistan realised at a heavy cost that would scar it permanently, that militarily it was impossible to defeat India. On January 24, 1972, a little over a month after Pakistan had lost East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in the city of Multan in the Punjab province of Pakistan, a conference was held, presided over by the Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto which came to be known as the Multan Conference.

The Multan Conference was the strategic planning session for Pakistan’s military establishment and in it three important decisions were taken for Pakistan’s future. One, Pakistan would go nuclear. Two, Pakistan will wage a war for Jammu & Kashmir at a suitable time. Three, Pakistan would bleed India with attrition through low-intensity conflict.

On July 05, 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq, the Chief of the Army Staff of the Pakistan Army, seized power in a coup d’etat by over-throwing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and anointed himself as the Chief Martial Law Administrator. The same year, the earlier decision taken in the Multan Conference of bleeding India with attrition through low-intensity conflict was formalised as a military doctrine called “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” and is till date taught to mid-level officers of the Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force undergoing the Staff Course in the Command and Staff College, Quetta.

Pakistan first put to use this military doctrine of “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” in Punjab, India where it supported terrorism from 1980 till 1995 when terrorism was wiped out from this border state of India. Terrorism in Punjab that lasted for 15 years saw 13,442 civilians and security forces personnel being killed.

As terrorism was waning in Punjab, in end-1989 Pakistan started supporting terrorism in another border state of India, Jammu & Kashmir where terrorism still continues for over 36 years. Till 2024, total of 42,143 civilians and security forces personnel have been killed in Jammu & Kashmir due to the ongoing terrorism.

Pakistan has a long history of being funded by the global monetary institutions because of its precarious economy. Part of the international loans is channeled by Pakistan to the terrorist organisations.

On April 22, 2025, Pakistan-armed and trained terrorists killed 26 male tourists in Baisaran Meadows, a picturesque and popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir based on religious profiling. Amongst these 26 dead were 25 Indian citizens and one Nepali citizen.

India struck back at Pakistan militarily in the wee hours of May 07, 2025. In the 88-hour India-Pakistan Conflict that ensued, India destroyed nine terrorist training centres in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Jammu & Kashmir in a military strike called Operation Sindoor, apart from damaging 20% of the infrastructure of the Pakistan Air Force. The details of this military operation are in a podcast by the author.

As Operation Sindoor was in full force and fury by India, and Pakistan had launched the counter-offensive called Operation Bunyan um-Marsoos, came the news that the International Monetary Fund, a major financial agency of the United Nations, has sanctioned loan worth US$ 2.4 billion to Pakistan.

And if this wasn’t enough, soon after the India-Pakistan Ceasefire came into effect at 5 pm on May 10, 2025 as the 59-member Indian delegation was touring 32-nations in seven-groups, to apprise the world of Pakistan’s complicity and culpability in supporting terrorism in India and the spectacular victory of India over Pakistan in the 88-hour conflict, the World Bank sanctioned US$ 40 billion loan to Pakistan on May 31, 2025 and the Asian Development Bank approved US$ 800 million loan to Pakistan on June 03, 2025.

The World Bank headquartered in Washington D.C., like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are totally controlled by the USA, while the Asian Development Bank (ADB) with its headquarters in Manila, Philippines too has a strong tilt towards USA.

In the World Bank, the USA has 49.98% voting power, while both Russia and China have 2.61% each and India has 2.53% voting power.

USA has 17.42% of the voting rights in the IMF while Russia has 2.71% and China has 0.37%. The other members of the four-nation Quad which includes the USA, Japan, India and Australia, have voting percentage in the IMF as Japan with 6.47%, India 2.75% and Australia with 1.38%. Thus, the Quad nations have a total of 28.02% voting share in the IMF.

As of December 31, 2020 the USA and Japan control 15.571% of the shares of the ADB while China controls 6.429%, India controls 6.317% of the shares and Australia 5.773%. The Quad nations in the ADB control 43.232% voting shares.

Clearly, the USA is the most dominant player in all the three biggest global financial institutions the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB. And if the combined voting power of the four-nation Quad is taken, then the Quad is a reckonable force in all the three major international monetary institutions.

Pakistan has 80 terrorist groups operating with over 40,000 operatives who are waging the war on India from the Pakistani soil. India has on numerous occasions submitted documents and dossiers to Pakistan of these terrorist groups, apart from raising the issue of Pakistan’s support to terrorism in various international forums including the United Nations.

And yet, Pakistan with ease got the loans from these three monetary institutions after its armed and trained terrorists killed 26 persons in Pahalgam, India on April 22, 2025. This is the curious case of global funding of Pakistan even as it supports terrorism.

It is no brainer that both money and religious indoctrination are the two biggest factors on which terrorism thrives. And if the financial supply chain is severed, the religious indoctrination can’t last long.

Pakistan is the only country in the world that has good relations with all the three superpowers ie USA, Russia and China. A recent article in this publication explains this issue in detail.

Sample the following two statements by senior US officials in the recent past. On October 21, 2011, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton while on a visit to Pakistan remarked in reference to terrorism “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them to only bite your neighbour”. On October 15, 2022, Joe Biden the US President stated that Pakistan is one of the most dangerous nations in the world.

Also, the USA had selective amnesia when it played the pivotal role in Pakistan getting the loans from the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, that the world’s most dreaded terrorist Osama bin Laden, responsible for the 9/11 World Trade Centre terrorist attacks that killed 2977 American citizens, was killed on May 02, 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan by the US Special Forces.

The other Quad nations Japan and Australia too did not stand with India to oppose the loans to Pakistan from the World Bank, the IMF and the ADB.

The world has to stop funding Pakistan. Till Pakistan gets monetary aid, it will funnel money to the terrorist organisations which have been carrying out death and destruction in India for the past 45 years.

Money after all, is the most powerful weapon in the world.

Milton Friedman’s quote needs no reemphasis in the context of Pakistan’s global funding and its support to terrorism “Money is a very powerful thing, which you hardly notice when it goes right, but which can create havoc when it goes wrong”.

Overview of India & Pakistan’s Nuclear Capabilities

By

-

June 5, 2025

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

India and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons: source Internet

India entered the nuclear arms race by the peaceful nuclear test in 1974, after the establishment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. India didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because India claimed it was discriminatory towards them. India did its second nuclear weapon testing after India adopted No First Use (NFU) policy, which declared that India would use weapon of mass destruction only if the state was attacked by nuclear weapon first by other nuclear armed country. India also has the Credible Minimum Deterrence’ as a part of India’s nuclear policies. Both India and Pakistan has signed ‘Confidence Building Measurement’ which are measurements to prevents any future nuclear conflict.

Pakistan, on the other hand, tested nuclear weapon much later in May 1998, just days after India tested for the second time, and became a nuclear armed state. Pakistan has also not signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they don’t have No First Use Policy, infect they have First Use Policy in order to deter from India or any other nuclear threats. Although, Pakistan has adopted a position of  “no first use” against non-nuclear weapon states. Pakistan keepa nuclear warheads separately from the missiles and only assembles them if they are considered to be used. Pakistan’s position on nuclear disarmament is that it will only give up nuclear weapons if India gives up its own nuclear arsenal. Pakistan declared strategic nuclear policy claims to avoid conflict through “full spectrum deterrence,” while maintaining minimum credible deterrence. In order to mitigating the likelihood of misunderstanding, accidental or intentional nuclear escalation, both states agreed to resume the dialogue and launched a composite dialogue process in 2004 that led to the negotiation of Nuclear Confidence Building Measurements (NCBMs).

Overall, both states have agreed to four NCBMs over the years. First agreement in this regime was ‘Non-Attack Agreement’ in 1988, in this agreement both countries agreed to exchange information of latitude and longitude of nuclear installations annually on the 1st of January and refrain from any actions causing harm to nuclear facilities of either state. The second agreement was ‘Hotline: Foreign Secretaries’ in 2004. This established direct communications over the hotline to allow urgent contact and to prevent misunderstanding of any attack. The third agreement was ‘Advance Notification of Ballistic Missile Tests’ in 2005. This agreement was done to avoid misinterpretation for any peaceful explosion done by either countries. And the fourth agreement was ‘Reducing the Risk from Nuclear Weapons Accidents’ in 2007 which was signed to mitigate any risk from nuclear accidents and that both the states must immediately notify the other state in the event of any nuclear weapons accident that could result in radioactive fallout or the risk of a nuclear war between the two countries.

India and Pakistan – Nuclear Arsenal

India tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974, becoming the sixth country to detonate a nuclear weapon. The country’s arsenal carries weapons with estimated average yields ranging from 10 to 40 kilotons, though exact yields are unknown. India has 172 nuclear warheads making it 6^th largest nuclear state. Other than that India also has approximately 700 kilograms enriched uranium that can be used to make up to 213 warheads.

India’s has nuclear capabilities is in all three domains i.e., land based, Aircrafts, and naval missiles. India has nearly 64 warheads in four deferent types land based ballistic missiles capable of nuclear payload, two of them are short range, one is medium range and one is intermediate range ballistic missile. India has the ability to deliver approximately 48 nuclear warheads via the Mirage 2000H/I, Jaguar IS/IB and Rafale aircraft. India has one ship-launched and one submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), capable to be equipped on submarine but the nuclear capable submarine development in India has not completed yet.

Pakistan tries to compete with India by having nearly 170 warheads making Pakistan the 7^th largest nuclear state after India. Pakistan also has enough material to make up to 200 warheads. Pakistan has also tried to miniaturised nuclear missiles to make Multiple Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs). Pakistan’s nuclear is estimated to be mainly on land-based missiles.

Pakistan is considered to have warheads in six deferent types of land based ballistic missile capable of nuclear payload. All of them are short to medium range ballistic missiles. Pakistan also has naval nuclear capabilities. Babar-3, a Sea Launch Ballistic Missile (SLBM), has been tested twice under the water. However, the completion of the development of Babar-3 has not been confirmed yet. Pakistan approved the purchase of eight submarines from China, considered to be capable of carrying Babar-3 missiles. The F-16, Mirage-3 and Mirage-5 aircrafts are considered to be capable of carrying nuclear missile. Pakistan is estimated to have nearly 12 Mirage aircrafts.

India was the second-largest arms importer from 2020-2024, after Ukraine. Majority of India’s imports come from Russia, although it has been shifting its arms sourcing to France, Israel and the United States. All of these countries are nuclear states, which makes them a potential ally in a nuclear conflict. On top of that, India’s total military strength is 5,137,550 personnel, which is more than twice the size of Pakistan. India possesses 2,229 military aircraft and has 3,151 combat tanks. India’s mainland coast covers nearly 6,100 km (3,800 miles) with 293 naval assets.

On the other hand, Pakistan is the fifth-largest arms importer with 4.6 percent imports in 2020–24. Since 1990, Pakistan’s main supplier has been China. China supplied 81 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports in 2020–24; Russia supplied 36 percent of India’s arms during the same period. China and Russia are also nuclear states, which makes them a potential ally to Pakistan. Comparatively Pakistan’s military strength is weaker than India, including 1,704,000 personnel. Pakistan possesses 1,399 military aircraft and has 1,839 combat tanks. Pakistan’s navy covers its 1,046 kilometre-long (650-mile) southern coastal borders in the Arabian Sea and possesses 121 naval assets.

Risk of Nuclear Conflict

India and Pakistan had been at war multiple times since India got independence from the British empire in 1947 and Pakistan was created as a new nation. Thousands of people were killed in the separation in communal violence, resulting hostile environment between both sides for decades. The possibility of the use of nuclear weapon has been closest multiple time between India and Pakistan, i.e. 1999 Kargil war, 2019 Pulwama attack and the recent 2025 Pahalgam attack. India and Pakistan conflict was considered as the possible nuclear threats for the first time in the Kargil war in 1999, which happened nearly a year after both India and Pakistan had declared themselves as nuclear armed states.

On February 2019, when a terrorist group ‘Jaish-e-Mohammed’ attacked by suicide bomb car in the Pulwama region of the Kashmir Valley in India, killing 40 Indian military personnel. India retaliated with air strikes near the Line of Control twelve days after the terrorist attack happened. Pakistan also shot down an Indian aircraft and captured the pilot. This escalated the tensions between the nations. But two days later, Pakistan released the pilot back to India. However, in February 2021, both the nuclear state declared ceasefire on the borders. This decreased the tensions between them.

On April 22, 2025, 26 hapless tourists were killed in a terrorist attack in Pahalgam by Pakistan armed and trained terrorists. Pakistan was quick to draw the nuclear threats when India vowed to “identify, track and punish” those behind the terrorist strike. Pakistan conducted a test of its 450 km-range, nuclear-capable, surface-to-surface Abdali missile on May 3. On May 05, the Pakistan army also tested a Fatah surface-to-surface missile with a range of 120 km. India ignored these signals as it vowed a “measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible” action against the terrorists. On May 07, India carried out military strikes on nine carefully chosen terrorist infrastructure. On this Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said that the threat of nuclear war was “clear and present”.

On May 12, 2025, in an address to the nation, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “[There] is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail; India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats. The Indian Ministry of Defence issued a press statement that they responded “considerable restraint in the selection of targets and method of execution” and that “no Pakistani military facilities have been targeted”. Islamabad took this as a violation of its territorial sovereignty and hit Indian military and civilian sites. India responded proportionately against Pakistan’s airfields and air defence systems. On the third day of the engagement, Pakistan called for a ceasefire.

Conclusion

In the terms of quantities, the nuclear warheads are almost the same in both nations. However, the India’s nuclear capability can be considered much higher if we consider the military capabilities including the number of personnel and the number of tanks, aircrafts and submarines capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Some scholars believe that India-Pakistan borders a nuclear flashpoint. A terrorist attack should not be tolerated and must have repercussions. In the long term, both India and Pakistan need to get into a serious conversation in order to foster peace and avoid any future nuclear conflict.

Russia’s Shadow War. The Rise Of Putin’s Proxy Pyromaniacs And Europe’s Battle Against The Invisible Army!

By

-

May 31, 2025

Since the onset of the Ukraine war, Europe has witnessed a disturbing surge in hybrid sabotage operations, from the deliberate damage to undersea cable infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, to the incendiary attack on Warsaw’s largest shopping mall, and even the targeted harassment of pro-Ukraine figures in Estonia. These acts are not isolated incidents; they represent a coordinated campaign of low-intensity disruption that is reshaping Europe’s security architecture.

What sets this new wave of subversive activity apart is its tactical composition. Unlike Cold War-era espionage, where professional intelligence officers operated under diplomatic cover, today’s operations are increasingly outsourced to untrained, low-cost assets. Many of these individuals are amateurs recruited via social media platforms, often driven by financial incentives rather than ideological loyalty. Some are barely adults, others oblivious to the broader geopolitical consequences of their actions. They are the mercenaries of the digital age, remote-controlled actors in a deniable war.

This emerging modus operandi reflects a broader adaptation to the digital ecosystem. In a world where recruitment, training, and payment can occur without physical contact or state attribution, traditional counterintelligence models struggle to keep pace. Russia’s use of such decentralized, expendable assets shows the appeal of gray zone warfare – actions that fall below the threshold of open conflict but still achieve strategic disruption.

However, the deniability that once shielded such operations is increasingly under strain. The arrest and interrogation of amateur operatives across Europe have begun to expose the scaffolding behind these campaigns, implicating Russian intelligence in more direct terms. In response, Western governments are starting to redraw the contours of deterrence in the gray zone.

Initiatives like NATO’s Baltic Sentry – aimed at securing vulnerable maritime infrastructure and the Biden administration’s explicit warnings against Russian-directed mail bomb plots in North America, signal a nascent but evolving counter-strategy. These are attempts to impose diplomatic and kinetic consequences on activities that once operated in a legal and strategic vacuum.

Yet, the rules of engagement in this shadow conflict remain fluid and fragmented. The West is only beginning to define what constitutes a red line in the hybrid warfare arena. Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to exploit ambiguity, leveraging chaos at low cost while sowing strategic uncertainty.

As the contours of this invisible war sharpen, Europe and its allies must struggle with a key question – how to fight a war that no one officially declares, but everyone increasingly feels.

Baltic Sea Undersea Cable Sabotage
Tactics: State organs enlist a third party that would typically operate in the target maritime space; for example, a captain of a commercial vessel. The third party then drops anchor near the target and proceeds to drag it along the seabed until the cable is severely damaged or cut outright. This tactic is particularly well suited to the Baltic Sea due to its shallow waters and critical undersea cable infrastructure (data and energy).

Benefits: There are three benefits so far as the state sponsor is concerned. The first is the low operating cost, which is basically the money needed to enlist the third party. The second is deniability since these gray zone operations do not directly involve any state instruments in performing the sabotage. The possibility of accidental damage provides another layer of deniability that is often invoked by detained crews, and potentially with all sincerity, since accidental anchor-related damage is a common cause of undersea infrastructure destruction. Third, damage to undersea infrastructure can have major economic impacts, costing anywhere between €5 million and €150 million to fix, with repairs taking months if not years to complete.

Costs: The question of how to create costs is not one that is easily answered, and herein lies the strategic appeal of gray zone warfare in the first place. Doing too much risks kinetic conflict; but doing too little invites more sabotage in the future. Littoral stakeholders have made efforts to hold individual captains and crews to account. There is also a more concerted military strategy to safeguard Baltic infrastructure. In January 2025, NATO announced the ‘Baltic Sentry’ initiative, which will deploy frigates, patrol aircraft, and maritime drones to monitor critical infrastructure in the area. Notably, the deployment will have the power to board, impound, and arrest crews suspected of sabotage.

Notable Incidents
Nord Stream (September 26, 2022): An underseas explosion renders the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines linking Germany and Russia inoperable. In the immediate aftermath of the explosion, fingers are pointed at all sides. Since then, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany have conducted separate investigations into the cause. The first two ended inconclusively, while the German one alleges the possible involvement of Ukrainian divers, trained in Poland.

BCS East-West / C-Lion1 (November 17-18, 2024): Two undersea cables are severely damaged in less than 24 hours, with the China-flagged bulk carrier Yi Peng 3 operating in the area at the time. China allows representatives from Germany, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark to board the ship, though it refuses entry to the Swedish prosecutor leading the investigation. The ensuing report notes that the Yi Peng 3 dragged its anchor for 1.5 days across 180 nautical miles, coinciding with the time of the cable breaks. Yet in the report’s final judgement, while emphasizing that the investigation was hampered by limited access, it declares that there’s no way to conclude either deliberate sabotage or accidental anchor deployment.

Estlink 2 (December 25, 2024): The Estlink 2 electricity connection between Finland and Estonia goes offline, prompting the Finnish authorities to detain the 24-strong crew of the Eagle S – a tanker believed to belong to Russia’s ‘shadow fleet.’ The Eagle S has since been allowed to leave, and three crew members remain detained as the investigation continues. The Estlink 2 is expected to be back online sometime in July.

Latvia-Sweden Cable Damage (January 26, 2025): Latvian government announces damage to a fiber optic cable linking Latvia and Sweden. The Maltese-flagged ship Vezhen is boarded and detained by Swedish authorities before being cleared of sabotage and released in February.

Europe Arson and Espionage Campaign

Tactics: Echoing the playbook used in the Baltic Sea sabotage operations, state-linked actors in this campaign rely on proxy operatives – criminals, ideological sympathizers, or financially desperate individuals – to carry out acts of arson, vandalism, and low-level sabotage. Increasingly, these recruits are sourced through online platforms such as Telegram, leading to an uptick in amateur and ad-hoc operations. The goal is psychological as much as material: to foment disorder, erode public trust, and stretch internal security resources across Europe.

Benefits: Three strategic advantages make this campaign attractive to state sponsors:

—Low-cost recruitment via online or offline methods, often with payments made in cryptocurrency and promises of material rewards (e.g., vehicles, housing).

—Low diplomatic fallout, as operatives are not official agents and can be disowned if caught.

—High deniability, as small-scale acts of sabotage rarely attract immediate geopolitical scrutiny, and absent clear evidence, linking them to a state sponsor remains speculative.

Costs: The same factors that make these operations cheap also introduce vulnerabilities. Amateur operatives are more prone to capture and more likely to confess under pressure, revealing operational details that degrade the effectiveness and secrecy of the overall campaign. With every arrest, the ‘gray zone’ narrows, increasing the political cost of continued sabotage.

Notable Incidents
Poland Amateur Spy Ring (November 2023):
16 foreigners are charged with espionage, accused of surveilling ports, military assets, and trains entering Ukraine, and spreading pro-Russian propaganda. All were recruited via Telegram, paid in crypto, and some received logistical support including housing and vehicles.

Estonia Vandalism (December 8, 2023):
Cars belonging to Estonia’s Interior Minister and a journalist are vandalized. Seven are convicted, including activist Allan Hantsom (sentenced to 6.5 years). The group allegedly acted under GRU direction, with a €10,000 bounty for the operation.

Poland Paint Factory Aborted Arson (January 2024):
Ukrainian national ‘Sergei S’ is caught attempting to flee after failing to ignite a Polish paint factory. Despite not completing the mission, he is sentenced to 8 years. He was allegedly recruited and paid via Telegram.

Warsaw Hardware Store Arson (April 14, 2024):
A large-scale arson at a Warsaw hardware store causes €840,000 in damage. Belarusian suspect ‘Stepan K’ is charged, accused of acting on behalf of Russian intelligence.

Vilnius IKEA Arson (May 9, 2024):
A fire guts the IKEA store in Vilnius, Lithuania. Ukrainian teenager Daniil Bardadim is arrested and charged with terrorism. Prosecutors allege GRU-linked agents promised him an old BMW and $11,000 in cash.

Marywilska Shopping Center Arson (May 12, 2024):
One of the largest fires in Poland’s recent history destroys the Marywilska 44 shopping complex. Authorities allege it was carried out by an organized criminal group linked to Russian intelligence. The incident is reportedly connected to the Vilnius IKEA case, with Bardadim and four others—including suspected Russia-based handler Oleksander V.—named as conspirators. In response, Poland orders Russia to shut its Krakow consulate.

DHL Package Explosions & Ongoing Parcel Sabotage Campaign

Tactics: The campaign leverages international shipping logistics to introduce high-risk sabotage operations capable of inflicting significant economic and psychological damage. Using seemingly innocuous packages sent via legitimate courier networks, operatives attempt to plant incendiary or explosive devices – specifically magnesium-based compounds designed to ignite mid-flight. The approach exploits both the scale and anonymity of global freight systems, while placing the burden of security on already overextended logistical chains.

Benefits:

Deniability: Packages originate from non-Russian territories (e.g., Lithuania), obscuring attribution.

Global reach: Access to commercial shipping networks allows the threat to span continents, with minimal physical footprint from operators.

Escalation pressure: The mere threat of a successful trans-Atlantic incident (e.g., a mid-air explosion over North America) serves as a high-leverage geopolitical tool, compelling direct backchannel warnings and diplomatic engagement.

Costs:

High strategic risk: Any successful attack resulting in loss of life or aircraft would risk immediate and severe international backlash.

Operational exposure: Once patterns are detected, the physical and digital forensics of parcel shipments—origin data, courier logs, chemical residue—make it easier to trace perpetrators and state affiliations.

Intelligence blowback: As in past sabotage cases, operators often prove unaware of the operation’s true intent, making them prone to confession upon capture and further exposing network structures.

Notable Incidents
DHL Package Explosions (July 2024):
Three packages ignite magnesium-based fires at DHL routing centers in Leipzig, Birmingham, and near Warsaw over a span of 72 hours. All originated in Lithuania and were designed to simulate in-flight ignition, likely to test feasibility for future intercontinental attacks. Intelligence indicates the operation was a dry run for trans-Atlantic sabotage, prompting the Biden administration to issue a direct warning to Moscow. Poland later arrests four suspects, including alleged operative Alexander Bezrukavyi, extradited from Bosnia. Reports suggest some participants were unaware of the packages’ contents, believing they were performing routine courier services.

Second Package Plot (May 2025):
Germany arrests three Ukrainian nationals, charging them with conspiracy to execute parcel-based attacks similar to the 2024 DHL plot. German authorities allege the trio was recruited by Russian intelligence. The operation is especially notable in the context of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, indicating that the election of Donald Trump did not produce any discernible reduction in Russia’s gray zone activities against NATO countries.

Nukes, Negotiations, And A Nervous Israel. Is The US Trading Security For Diplomacy While Iran Arms For A Strike?

By

-

May 30, 2025

Israel is increasingly alarmed that the United States, in its rush to revive a nuclear deal with Iran, may abandon key conditions it once considered non-negotiable – chief among them, the demand that Iran halt all uranium enrichment. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Israeli officials fear that this shift could not only weaken the deal but also restrict Israel’s freedom to carry out military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

This unease follows President Donald Trump’s confirmation earlier this week that he had cautioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against any military actions that might derail ongoing negotiations. While both Washington and Jerusalem have publicly agreed that a new agreement must require Iran to stop enriching uranium, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff has called this a red line that cannot be crossed.

However, since Tehran continues to reject this condition, insisting its enrichment is solely for civilian energy purposes, Israeli officials suspect the U.S. may be preparing to water down the deal rather than risk blowing up the talks entirely.

For Israel, such an outcome is deeply problematic. Netanyahu has long maintained that “a bad deal is worse than no deal,” but without American backing, Israel’s ability to act unilaterally against Iran’s nuclear program is significantly limited, Israeli security experts told the Journal.

Spotlighting the strategic rift, a senior U.S. official anonymously acknowledged that Washington and Tel Aviv are currently “not on the same page” regarding how to move forward. Still, the official left the door open to future U.S. support for Israeli military action, hinting: “If they [Iran] don’t want to make a deal, then that’s another conversation.”

Iran Pursuing Long-Range Nuclear Strike Capability, Austrian Intelligence Warns

Iran is actively advancing a nuclear weapons program designed to deliver long-range missile strikes, according to a damning new assessment by Austria’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the country’s domestic intelligence agency. The 211-page report stands in stark contrast to the more cautious stance of the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which maintains that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon.

“In pursuit of regional dominance and to shield its regime from external threats, Iran is engaged in a sweeping rearmament strategy that includes the development of nuclear weapons,” the Austrian agency stated. It further claimed that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is “well advanced,” with an expanding arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over vast distances.

The report illustrates the threat by referencing Iran 99 times, alleging that Tehran’s embassy in Vienna, among the largest in Europe, serves as a cover for intelligence operations. It accuses Iranian intelligence services of being adept at circumventing sanctions and acquiring proliferation-sensitive technology, often using covert procurement networks that have also benefited Russia.

The document cites the 2021 conviction of Iranian diplomat Asadollah Asadi in Belgium, who was found guilty of plotting a bombing at a 2018 Iranian opposition rally near Paris. The event was attended by thousands, including Rudy Giuliani, former attorney to then-President Donald Trump.

The Austrian assessment clashes sharply with the view of U.S. intelligence. During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reiterated that the American intelligence community still believes Iran is not currently constructing a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has not reversed the suspension of the program he ordered in 2003.

Nevertheless, the Austrian findings could further complicate U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to re-engage Tehran in nuclear talks. A White House official told Fox News that Trump “remains committed to ensuring Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon or the capability to build one.”

Adding to the alarm, European intelligence agencies reportedly uncovered evidence in 2023 that Iran continued to sidestep U.S. and EU sanctions to obtain technologies necessary for a nuclear weapons test, activities allegedly ongoing both before and after the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Austrian report also accuses Iran of arming terrorist-designated groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, and various militias operating in Syria, further intensifying regional security concerns.

Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty: India’s response to Pakistan’s Terror

By

-

May 30, 2025

1

By: Sonalika Singh, Research Analyst, GSDN

The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India in 2025 has emerged as a landmark development in South Asian geopolitics, raising critical questions about international water diplomacy and bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. The treaty, signed in 1960 with the mediation of the World Bank, was designed to fairly allocate the waters of the Indus River system between the two nations following the 1947 Partition. For over six decades, it withstood wars, political upheaval, and numerous regional crises, serving as a rare example of sustained cooperation in an otherwise volatile relationship.

India’s decision to suspend the treaty came in the wake of a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025 in which Pakistan-armed and trained terrorists killed 26 persons on the basis of religious profiling. Accusing Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism, India invoked national security concerns as justification for halting the flow of water to Pakistan from dams and river systems under its control. This unprecedented move has not only intensified tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors but also raised alarms over the weaponization of water as a strategic tool. The suspension has far-reaching consequences threatening Pakistan’s water security, challenging international norms, and potentially destabilizing the fragile peace in a region already grappling with climate stress and political uncertainty.

The 1947 partition of British India divided the Indus River basin between the newly formed nations of India and Pakistan. As a result, Pakistan became the lower riparian state, reliant on water flows originating in India. Crucially, key irrigation headworks Madhopur (on the Ravi River) and Ferozepur (on the Sutlej River) fell within Indian territory. This geographical shift led to immediate disputes over water access and usage.

Following the expiration of the Standstill Agreement on April 1, 1948, India began to withhold water supplies to Pakistan from the eastern rivers. This sudden disruption created an acute water crisis in Pakistan’s Punjab province. To avoid escalation, both nations signed an interim Inter-Dominion Agreement on May 4, 1948. Under this accord, India agreed to continue supplying water to Pakistan in return for compensation until a permanent solution could be reached.

In 1951, unable to secure a lasting resolution, Pakistan took the dispute to the United Nations, accusing India of deliberately interrupting its water supply. In response, the World Bank under the leadership of President Eugene Black offered to mediate. This led to a series of technical negotiations and diplomatic discussions involving both countries, aiming for a sustainable, long-term water-sharing framework.

After nearly a decade of intensive negotiations, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960. The signatories included Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Pakistani President Ayub Khan, and World Bank representative W.A.B. Illiff. Although signed in September, the treaty was applied retroactively from April 1, 1960.

The Indus Waters Treaty divided the Indus River system between India and Pakistan in a way that granted India control over the three eastern rivers Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej while Pakistan received exclusive rights to the three western rivers Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. To ensure the effective implementation and ongoing administration of the treaty, the Permanent Indus Commission was established as a bilateral body responsible for maintaining regular communication between the two countries, sharing data on water flows and development projects, and resolving disputes through dialogue and technical consultations. Over the decades, the treaty has been widely recognized as one of the most successful and enduring international water-sharing agreements, withstanding periods of war and heightened diplomatic tensions between India and Pakistan.

The treaty permits India to construct storage facilities and run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, provided they do not adversely affect Pakistan’s water rights. Over the decades, the Indus Waters Treaty has withstood numerous challenges, including three wars, serving as a rare example of sustained cooperation between the two nations.

The immediate trigger for India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty was a terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025, which resulted in the deaths of 26 individuals. India accused Pakistan of supporting state-sponsored terrorism, leading to the decision to place the treaty in abeyance. The Indian government stated that the suspension would remain in effect until Pakistan ceases its support for cross-border terrorism as “blood and water cannot flow together”. This move has significantly strained bilateral relations and heightened tensions in the region.

Following the suspension of cooperation under the Indus Waters Treaty, India undertook several actions that have heightened tensions and disrupted the established water-sharing arrangements. One significant move was the release of water from the Uri Dam into the Jhelum River without prior notification to Pakistan, resulting in unexpected downstream flooding. Additionally, India closed the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River, causing a substantial reduction in water flow to Pakistan. Further escalating the situation, India announced plans to halt the flow of water through the Kishanganga Dam on the Neelum River, which would further diminish Pakistan’s water supply.

Pakistan has frequently faced accusations of involvement in terrorism through its support of various designated terrorist organizations. These allegations have been made by several countries, including its neighbours Afghanistan, Iran, and India, as well as by the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The accusations pertain to Pakistan’s support for terrorist activities both within South Asia and globally.

For over 45 years, Pakistan has been widely accused of sponsoring and supporting terrorism in India, particularly in the region of Jammu and Kashmir and earlier in Punjab. Successive Indian governments and intelligence agencies have pointed to Pakistan’s deep-rooted involvement in cross-border terrorism through state-backed groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen.

In 2008, Daniel Byman, a professor and senior analyst at the Center for Middle East Policy, described Pakistan as potentially the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism. A decade later, in 2018, former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif suggested that elements within Pakistan’s establishment may have played a role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba.

During a 2019 visit to the United States, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan admitted that 30,000–40,000 armed terrorists were operating on Pakistani soil. He further stated that previous governments had concealed this reality from the U.S. for over 15 years during the War on Terror.

The terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of at least 26 civilians. While the attack was initially claimed by ‘The Resistance Front’, a claim later retracted India accused Pakistan of orchestrating the assault. Pakistan denied any involvement.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, has also reportedly acknowledged that the country supported terrorist groups for over three decades, calling it a strategic mistake linked to U.S.-led foreign policy decisions.

In response to India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan strongly condemned the move, calling it a violation of international law and a direct threat to its water security. The Pakistani government urged India to reverse the decision, emphasizing the treaty’s critical role in ensuring regional peace and stability.

Pakistan’s concerns are compounded by existing water scarcity issues, exacerbated by climate change. The country is already facing severe water shortages, with over 10 million people (about half the population of New York) lacking access to clean drinking water following the catastrophic 2022 floods. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty has further intensified these challenges, threatening the livelihoods of millions, thus hitting Pakistan where it hurts the most. Clearly, Pakistan is now feeling the real heat of perpetrating terrorism in India for the last 45 years.

The Indus Waters Treaty does not contain provisions for unilateral suspension by either party. Article XII (3) of the treaty allows for modifications through mutual agreement, but unilateral actions are not permitted. India’s suspension raises questions about the treaty’s legal enforceability and the mechanisms available for dispute resolution. The World Bank, which played a pivotal role in facilitating the treaty, has stated that its role is limited to that of a facilitator and has refrained from intervening in the current dispute.

The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty carries significant strategic and environmental implications for both India and Pakistan. India’s recent actions, such as unannounced water releases and dam closures, have been interpreted by Pakistan and international observers as a deliberate effort to weaponize water using it as a tool of political and strategic pressure. This echoes historical practices where control over water was wielded to subdue adversaries, raising serious concerns about regional stability.

Experts caution that manipulating river flows can severely impact agriculture, particularly in Pakistan where millions depend on the Indus River system for irrigation and drinking water. Such disruption not only threatens food security but can also lead to lasting ecological damage, including soil degradation and reduced biodiversity. Compounding the issue is the growing impact of climate change. Both countries are experiencing shifting weather patterns, melting glaciers, and declining river flows factors that the original treaty, signed in 1960, does not adequately address. These evolving environmental realities highlight the urgent need to modernize the Indus Waters Treaty to include provisions for climate resilience and sustainable water management. Without cooperative adaptation, the treaty risks becoming obsolete, further intensifying tensions and undermining a historically successful framework for peaceful water sharing.

Pakistan has formally appealed to India to reconsider its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, emphasizing the treaty’s significance for regional stability and the well-being of millions who depend on the Indus River system.

Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) termed India’s action an “act of war,” asserting that any attempt to stop or divert water allocated to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty would be met with a robust response. The NSC emphasized that water is a vital national interest for Pakistan and a lifeline for its 240 million people. Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, warned that India cannot unilaterally suspend the treaty, noting the World Bank’s role as a key stakeholder in the agreement. In response, Pakistan is preparing to take legal action, including raising the issue at the World Bank, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or the International Court of Justice, arguing that India has violated the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Additionally, Pakistan plans to issue a formal diplomatic notice to India challenging the suspension. The situation underscores the critical importance of the Indus Waters Treaty and the need for both nations to engage in dialogue to address concerns and uphold their commitments.

Treaty modernization is also crucial to address contemporary challenges, including climate change and environmental sustainability. Amending the Indus Waters Treaty to incorporate provisions that account for these factors can ensure its relevance and effectiveness in the current geopolitical and environmental landscape. Experts suggest integrating more frequent periodic reviews, involving environmental and climate experts in monitoring, and developing neutral data exchange processes to strengthen the treaty’s framework.

The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty has brought India and Pakistan to a crucial crossroads. While the immediate prospects for resolution appear grim, the moment calls for courage, diplomacy, and vision. Renewed dialogue, international engagement, and treaty reform could transform this crisis into an opportunity for lasting peace and cooperation in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

India has given Pakistan to choose one option only – either support terrorism or ensure water for its 240 million citizens. The choice now solely rests on Pakistan.

The German War Toy Ukraine Desperately Wants – Taurus Missiles Could Change The War, If Only Berlin Grew A Spine

By

-

May 29, 2025