By: C Shraddha

On April 22, 2025, the serene valleys of Pahalgam, a tourist destination 50 km from Srinagar, were jeopardized when a group of Pakistan-armed and trained men in camouflage clothing emerged from an adjacent forest and fired upon tourists. As per officials, “the attackers opened indiscriminate fire at Baisaran Meadow, a scenic uphill area accessible only by foot or pony rides.” 25 Indians and a Nepali citizen lost their lives, with several others sustaining injuries while running away from the vicious attack. Following the brutality, The Resistance Front, a subsidiary of the infamous Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attack twice within a span of hours. 

While the Government of Pakistan refused to acknowledge the barbarity of the attack or the presence of terror networks within its territory, the Government of India promptly responded, showcasing its diplomatic, military and strategic prowess. On April 23, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a high-stakes strategic meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, National Security Advisor Ajith Doval, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan, Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi, Air Force Chief Air Marshal AP Singh, and Navy Chief Admiral Dinesh Tripathi. What followed was an onslaught of diplomatic measures isolating Pakistan, including the handing of persona non grata to Pakistani diplomats in India. Additionally, the visas of Pakistani nationals in India were cancelled, with Union Minister Amit Shah contacting Chief Ministers of the respective states to orchestrate the identification and removal process of these individuals from the Indian territory. Furthermore, India paused the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and closed the Attari-land transit point.

However, India’s response was not only limited to diplomatic avenues. In the early hours of May 7, 2025, the first phase of Operation Sindoor was afoot. The Indian Armed Forces targeted nine sites consisting of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan as well as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri confirmed the gravity of the attack by stating, “Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and methods of execution.” The deployment of BrahMos supersonic missiles and SCALP missiles ensured the death of 100 militants, including senior leaders of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, the following day, Pakistan showcased an escalated response by dispersing coordinated missile and drone strikes across military installations in Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Srinagar, Ludhiana, Bhuj and Bathinda. What followed was four days of aerial combat between the two countries. Continuous and unprovoked targeting of civilians by Pakistan through heavy-calibre artillery fire in the Line of Control further provoked the conflict when approximately sixteen innocent lives were taken. 

Finally, after the four-day-long military confrontation, the neighbouring nuclear states agreed to a ceasefire. However, within a few hours, as the bordering cities witnessed explosions, India accused Pakistan of violating the ceasefire. Mr Misri condemned Pakistani actions in a press briefing: “We call upon Pakistan to take appropriate steps to address these violations and deal with the situations with seriousness and responsibility.” In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of Pakistan criticised India for violating the ceasefire. “Our forces are handling this situation with responsibility and restraint,” retorted MOFA. 

Although the actions of the Indian government and the defence forces were lauded by the citizens both at home and abroad, the operation and its reactions have elicited critical responses. Questions have arisen about the reasons behind the lapse in security measures in Pahalgam. The lack of preparedness and foresight of the security forces and the government proved to present the terrorists with an opportunity to attack Baisaran Meadow. The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp was located 7 km away, while the camp of Rashtriya Rifles of the Army was 5 km away. Despite this, the heavily touristed area had no security forces present, letting the terrorists continue their savagery uninterrupted for approximately half an hour. Furthermore, it is shocking how neither the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) nor the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had any clue regarding the impending attack in Pahalgam. In an Union Territory that is heavily under the protection of armed forces, such a lapse in judgement and prescience unveils the gaps in Indian security. 

Despite claiming responsibility for the attack, TRF is not formally declared as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations (UN). While the UN condemned the attack in “the strongest terms”, it left out naming TRF as the perpetrator. The non-inclusion of the network in the list removes it from under the purview of UN counter-terrorism efforts, which include sanctions, travel bans and enhanced surveillance of funding efforts. Furthermore, this provides Pakistan with a degree of plausible deniability, making it more difficult for countries to block possible misuse of financial aid or to implement counter-terrorism measures. Thus, the efforts of the Indian delegates in securing the addition of the TRF to the UNSC 1267 Sanction list would strengthen counter-terrorism measures in the long run. 

The international responses to Operation Sindoor made one thing apparent- India is largely alone in matters of national security. While nations presented their support verbally, none of it altered India’s strategic position. This demonstrates the ability of India to chart its own course in the strategic and military domain and not fall in line with global power ambition. As retired Secretary to the Government of India, Guruchran Gollerkeri rightfully noted, “India’s conduct marks a departure from the reactive posture of the previous decades. It is a mature, independent stance- one that signals our refusal to be a geopolitical pawn.” It is important to acknowledge that while India has the capacity to maintain an independent stance, its nuclear neighbour has resorted to external support from states such as Turkey, Azerbaijan and China. As General Chauhan expressed during the Shangri-La dialogue, “India operated without foreign assistance during Operation Sindoor while Pakistan likely leaned on Chinese sources.” Though India has showcased its self-reliance capability, it is of utmost importance that the country maintains formidable international partnerships to ensure its readiness in the event of a broader military escalation.

Amongst international alliances, the discourse around the involvement of President Trump in stabilising the conflict has proved that India cannot perceive the US as a viable partner. Initially, the Trump administration feigned indifference. Vice President JD Vance made it clear that the US is “not going to get involved in the middle of a war that is fundamentally none of our business.” The actions of the Trump administration and the subsequent credit-mongering pursuits undertaken by the administration depict a modern interpretation of the white man’s burden. The administration boasted about brokering the ceasefire while simultaneously supporting the IMF bailout package of US$ 2.3 billion to Pakistan. Indian National Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has repeatedly and vehemently opposed President Trump’s “helped settle” tensions claim. During the multi-party delegation on Operation Sindoor, Tharoor expressed, “Mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain. The fact is that this implies… an equivalence which simply doesn’t exist.”

Operation Sindoor and its retaliation witnessed the unrestricted usage of drones. On May 7, over 600 drones were deployed by Pakistani forces to overwhelm India’s AD radar network, obtain real-time intelligence, target civilians and deplete India’s ammunition. “Drones emerged as the primary weapon of choice for both sides,” writes expert Amoha Basrur. Founder of Johnnette Technologies, John Livingstone, agrees with Basrur when he predicts that “Swarm drones will be the future of warfare.” However, Livingstone argues that India needs to enhance its drone capabilities and scale up drone inventory, wherein “10 million swarm drones” may be required for modern-day conflicts. Furthermore, he notes the need for the development of multiple drone technologies in the immediate future. “It’s not just one type of swarm drone; we need multiple types,” he says. Livingstone has advocated for a balanced approach wherein drones complement fighter jets in aerial combat. 

Though military innovation is of paramount importance, it is economic development that enables such progress. It is sustained investments in technology, infrastructure, intelligence and military that enabled India to overpower Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. Furthermore, it must be noted that a better economic position not only enables military transformation, it amplifies the position of India on the global stage. Pakistan was able to secure the IMF bail package due to the support of stronger economies, as voting quotas of the executive board of the IMF are based upon the size of the individual economies. Currently, India’s voting share is a mere 2.5 per cent, which resulted in Pakistan procuring the bailout despite India’s strong disapproval. Economic competence, combined with military advancements, remains the predominant strategy for India to realise its aspirations of leading the Global South while ensuring self-reliance and measured alignment.

The swarm of drones was not the only weapon shot down by Indian forces. Disinformation was another ammunition used by Pakistan, which was promptly debunked through comprehensive media briefings. According to General Chauhan, 15 percent of the time of the armed forces went into combating disinformation during the Operation. Throughout the four days, Pakistan actively engaged in propagating false narratives through social media and news broadcasts. On May 7, 2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) expressed that “Pro-Pakistan social media handles and even influential political figures” were “spreading fake news, fabricating stories of military victories and heroic retaliation that simply did not exist.” As per the I&B Ministry, the Pakistan state-affiliated media houses and social media accounts invented evidence by using outdated images and purposefully misinterpreting past videos. Fake videos depicting the surrender of the Indian Army at Chora Post were “amplified By Pakistan’s Minister Attaullah Tarar, who publicly endorsed the claim without a shred of evidence”, stated the I&B ministry. 

While Pakistan was on a smear campaign against the Indian armed forces through social media, the Indian cyberspace and computer networks were also vulnerable to cyberattacks from Pakistani actors. This reiterates the transformation of traditional warfare, which is now leaving its marks over cyberspaces and social media. Pakistani hackers engaged in website defacements while primarily targeting Indian armed forces and local government portals. Computer Emergency Response Team-India (CERT-IN) warned critical sectors and financial institutions of impending cyber-attacks. Additionally, Tamil Nadu Police and Himachal Pradesh Police reported higher risks of “phishing attempts from Pakistan-linked threat actors.” As Pakistan utilised the modern-day battlefield, Indian authorities responded with gusto. The Press Information Bureaus (PIB) Fact Check Unit debunked the false claims while additional measures were undertaken to restore the sanctity of cyberspace.  

Although Operation Sindoor marks a pivotal moment in India’s national security doctrine, it also sheds light on those areas which require careful recalibration. Cybersecurity, economic development, strategic partnerships and calculated deployment of forces must remain at the top of the priority list for India, as long as the country faces spiteful nuclear-armed neighbours. Despite the vicious Pahalgam attack exposing the vulnerabilities of India’s domestic intelligence, the attempt of the Pakistani forces to polarise the country remained largely uneventful. India’s non-escalatory, precise, isolated, and targeted attacks illustrated the country’s vehement opposition to terrorism and its state sponsorship. As the country moves ahead in its aspirations to lead the Global South, it must ensure to adequately combat its existing military vulnerabilities while simultaneously strengthening its economy and diplomacy. India’s path forward lies in careful considerations, not just in neutralising threats but in alertness, aim and alliance. 

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

In the early-1980s as a school student whenever the author visited his maternal grandparents in Mohali, Punjab, there was an uneasy feeling amongst all family members and acquaintances as terrorism was at the peak in this border state of India. The fear would get accentuated as the dusk fell and after last light there was virtually no movement on the roads of Punjab.

The terrorism in Punjab was the first testbed of Pakistan’s military doctrine “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts”. The terrorism which lasted in Punjab for the 15-year period from 1980 to 1995, resulted in the death of 13,442 civilians and security forces personnel.

In the end-1980s as terrorism started waning in Punjab, another border state of India, Jammu & Kashmir saw the onset of terrorism. This time too, Pakistan aided and abetted terrorism and for the 36-year period that terrorism has been ongoing in Jammu & Kashmir since end-1989, it has resulted in the death of 42,143 civilians and security forces personnel in the period 1989-2024.

Why is it that terrorism ended in Punjab in 15 years and for over 36 years this menace is not ending in Jammu & Kashmir, though in both the cases Pakistan is the main abettor and both the Indian states border Pakistan?

Two main reasons explain the above predicament. One, local support in Jammu & Kashmir. Two, the two-front war that China & Pakistan will wage on India in 2035, for which Jammu & Kashmir will be used as the inflection point by Pakistan to initiate the war.

Local Support for Terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir

As for a person to remain alive, oxygen is vital, similarly for terrorism to thrive, local support is of paramount importance. Without local support, terrorists can’t operate for a single day.

A miniscule population of Jammu & Kashmir still support terrorism. Though these supporters often called as Over Ground Workers (OGWs) are very less in number of the 13.5 million population residing in Jammu & Kashmir, but is significant enough to ensure that terrorism still continues for over 36 years.

Sample this. After the horrendous Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir on April 22, 2025 in which four Pakistan-armed and trained terrorists killed 26 male tourists on basis of religious profiling, 15 OGWs were arrested in Jammu & Kashmir for facilitating the Pahalgam carnage.

The OGWs support the terrorists for two main reasons – money and religious indoctrination.

OGWs & Money

The going rate for monetary renumeration given by the terrorists to the OGWs is Rs 500 (US$ 5.83) for a meal eaten by the terrorists in an OGW’s residence and Rs 1000 (US$ 11.67) for a night spent by the terrorists in an OGW’s house.

For these measly sums of money an OGW puts his/her nation in jeopardy which has disastrous consequences. It is not that all the OGWs are poor and hence they succumb to these monetary temptations. Some of the OGWs are financially fine, with few of them being in government jobs. Clearly, the dazzle of few extra bucks blinds these OGWs.

OGWs & Religious Indoctrination

The terrorists operating in Jammu & Kashmir are either locals or Foreign Terrorists (FTs). Either way, they are recruited by Pakistan based on their religion Islam. As Pakistan is a Muslim-majority nation with 96% of its population being Muslims, it uses Islam to indoctrinate and recruit locals of Jammu & Kashmir for terrorism and cultivating OGWs.

Jammu & Kashmir has 68.8% Muslims and 11 out of the 20 districts of Jammu & Kashmir are Muslim-majority. With the advent of technology and the use of the social media in a big way, Pakistan uses these platforms to subvert the youth using Islam as the main-stay for luring the youth to terrorism, either overtly or covertly.

What can be done?

In a report on how terrorist groups end published by the RAND Corporation, a highly-credible US global policy think-tank, on June 30, 2008 highlighted that only 7% of the terrorists’ groups ended by using military force whereas 43% ended through political dialogues, 40% through effective policing and 10% after the objectives of the terrorist organisations had been achieved.

For over 36 years, the military and police have performed beyond the call of duty to contain and combat terrorism.

Certainly, after the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A on August 05, 2019, Jammu & Kashmir has seen increased peace and prosperity. From the year 2018 witnessing 146 civilians and security forces personnel being killed in terrorist incidents, the year 2024 saw the numbers slumping down to 58. Where 0.85 million tourists visited Jammu & Kashmir in 2018, the numbers surged to 20.35 million in 2024.

More employment opportunities need to be created in Jammu & Kashmir as is more investment required. Though the unemployment has decreased in Jammu & Kashmir to 6.1% in 2023-24 from 6.7% in 2019-20, it is higher than the national unemployment rate of 4.9% in 2023-24.

After the abrogation of Article 370 & 35A in 2019, Jammu & Kashmir has attracted more investments with US$ 1.229 billion being invested till 2024 in the six-year period. 

The more the prosperity comes in, the lesser will the youth get entrapped in terrorism.

China & Pakistan’s two-front war on India in 2035

According to the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment released on February 05, 2024 by the Director of National Intelligence, USA, since the relations of India with both China and Pakistan are fragile, it is likely to result in a war between these three nations.

On March 17, 2025, General Upendra Dwivedi, the Chief of the Army Staff, Indian Army stated that the two-front war on India isn’t a possibility, but a reality.

All timelines in the public domain point to the year 2035 when China and Pakistan will jointly wage the two-front war on India. The details have been explained in the book authored by the author “China’s War Clouds: The Great Chinese Checkmate”.

In 2035, Pakistan will use the ongoing terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir as the inflection point to initiate the war for India, who will then be joined by China which will attack India for Arunachal Pradesh. Till 2035, Pakistan will do everything possible to keep terrorism alive in Jammu & Kashmir.

Consequent to the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April 2025, India and Pakistan were locked in the 88-hour military conflict called Operation Sindoor by India and Operation Bunyan um-Marsoos by Pakistan. In this 88-hour India-Pakistan Conflict, China openly aided Pakistan militarily, economically and diplomatically.

As always, India won another round of war/conflict against Pakistan with ease. The earlier four military duels between the two nuclear-armed neighbours of South Asia in 1947-49, 1965, 1971 and 1999, have always resulted in clear military victories of India over Pakistan.

The next big military challenge for India will be the two-front war with China and Pakistan in 2025.

On August 07, 2023, General MM Naravane (Retd), the 28^th Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army wrote in The Print that the two-front war will pose difficulties for India.

What should be done?

Centuries back, Chanakya the noted Indian military strategist had remarked that from the strength of the treasury, increases the military power.

India needs to do three things on priority. First is to increase the defence budget to 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Steadily, India’s defence budget has been decreasing over the years as percentage of the GDP. In 2019, India’s defence budget was 2.5% of the GDP which has reduced to 1.9% of the GDP in 2025. With increased defence budget, the state of art weapon systems can be manufactured or procured.

Secondly, to decrease the timelines for defence procurement and direct the Integrated Financial Advisors (IFAs) to expedite the clearances for defence purchases by various military formations.

Thirdly, utmost importance should be given for developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and integrating it in the defence formations and weapon systems, for AI will play a pivotal role in the future wars to be waged by China. Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 01, 2017 remarked that the nation which will lead in AI will rule the world. China is well on its track to become the global leader in AI by 2030.

Conclusion

While terrorism in Punjab could be crushed in 15 years, the ongoing terrorism for over 36 years in Jammu & Kashmir has acquired huge strategic implications which will culminate in the two-front war in 2035.

Methods and measures have to be adopted on a war-footing to counter terrorism as well as prepare for the two-front war. 2035 is just a decade way. One way to look at 2035 is that there is ample time of one decade, the other way is that the time duration of one decade is less.

Either way, the challenge confronting India is too serious to ignore.

By: Chethana Enugula

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.

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

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.