IA “FACT” already wrote on the preconditions for the escalation of the situation between India and Pakistan after the terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 23. India blamed the TRF, carried out airstrikes on Pakistan and Kashmir, and Pakistan responded by threatening war and shooting down Indian planes. Both sides have so far avoided open war, but escalation is unfolding both militarily and informationally, with terrorist groups and social media campaigns on the rise.
This conflict has become a tool for internal mobilization: Indian Prime Minister Modi is consolidating his position ahead of the elections, while Pakistani politics is controlled by the army. The risks of a major war are increasing—especially in the case of a ground invasion or strikes on civilian infrastructure. Meanwhile, the economies of both countries are suffering, regional supply chains are disrupted, investors are worried, and the global community remains powerless to prevent further escalation.
On the brink of a nuclear explosion: why the conflict between India and Pakistan is no longer just about Kashmir
When two nuclear powers are on the verge of a collision, it is no longer just a local dispute. The tension between India and Pakistan today is not just about Kashmir or the old rivalry. It’s about how a chain reaction from a local conflict can reach each of us, no matter where we are.
Beijing calls on the parties to exercise restraint. On the one hand, this is standard diplomacy. But on the other hand, China has a very specific cause for concern: billion-dollar investments in Pakistan, in particular in the “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor”, pass precisely through the zone of potential hostilities. Therefore, combat readiness has already been increased on the border with India.
Iran meanwhile stands out in his usual role of a peacemaker. Tehran says it has “historical and cultural ties” with both sides and is ready to mediate. This is part of Tehran’s new line: to demonstrate a capacity for diplomacy where everyone fears escalation.
Bangladesh limited itself to reserved statements about “deep concern”, Afghanistan is generally silent, but the risks obvious. The war between the two giants can shake up the border areas, drag radicals and militants into a vortex of conflict. The already unstable region risks slipping into even deeper chaos.
Pakistan has already closed sky for Indian aircraft. This disrupted the usual air routes between Europe and Southeast Asia. Carriers are forced to look for workarounds, flight time increases, logistics breaks down. The cost of delivering goods is rising, supply chains are beginning to slip.
Oil in Asia rose in price by 7% overnight. And it hasn’t even started in earnest yet. If hostilities approach the ports of Karachi or Mumbai, not only regional but also global energy flows will be affected. This means new price tags for fuel, transport and products, and not somewhere out there, but here at home.
Air transits through South Asia are not only passengers, but also chips from Taiwan, components for equipment, electronics that we hold in our hands every day. If this node breaks, you will have to pay more for laptops, phones, appliances and even cars. And this will affect both Ukraine and the entire European Union.
If Afghanistan or Bangladesh get involved in the vortex of destabilization, Europe will receive a new wave of refugees. This is not just a humanitarian problem, but also a political and financial challenge for countries already exhausted by previous crises.
Meanwhile, China and Iran can take advantage of the situation to further strengthen their position in the region. It is part of a global chessboard where every crisis provides an opportunity for geopolitical revenge.
This conflict affects more than two billion people living in the region and millions more in the world, which are linked to it through economics, energy and security. As the world watches silently, hotspots turn into fires that cannot be extinguished.
So the question is not whether there will be a war. And whether the world will have time to do something before it touches each of us.
War is expensive: How the escalation between India and Pakistan has hit the wallets
While warplanes take to the skies and diplomats squabble in briefings, the economy silently counts the losses. The current geopolitical tension between India and Pakistan is not only about the fear of nuclear war, but also very real losses: currency falls, stock markets crashing and capital flight. The bill ran into billions.
Indian markets seem to have learned from previous crises. Immediately after the shocks on Pakistan, Sensex and Nifty slightly asked, but showed cautious growth within a day. It helped that India struck a major trade deal with Great Britain that same week.
Foreign investors behaved ambiguously: $1.7 billion were withdrawn from the debt market, but $1.5 billion invested into Indian stocks: Looks like bets are on for the long term.
The only worrying note is the Indian rupee. She fell to the mark of 84.68 per dollar. The market is waiting to see if the Central Bank will intervene.
Panic on the Pakistan Stock Exchange (KSE-100): Immediately after the Indian strikes, the index fell by more than 2,000 points.
And this is not surprising: the foreign debt exceeds $131 billion, gold and foreign exchange reserves are at the limit, and the country still depends on the IMF program for $7 billion.
Agriculture, which gives the job of every second Pakistani is also at risk: India has suspended the Indus Water Treaty, which is the main water artery for Pakistan’s farming regions.
The threat of a major war between the two nuclear powers triggered the traditional reaction: investors rushed into gold and US government bonds, although stock markets in general hold on.
Oil also became more expensive: only after the closure of Pakistani airspace, prices jumped by 7%. Traders fear for transport across the Arabian Sea, particularly the port of Karachi.
Beijing is nervous. His favorite project in the region — the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor — passes right through Kashmir. If war breaks out here, Xi Jinping’s infrastructure dream worth more than $60 billion could come to nothing.
In the 21st century, the economy reacts to wars faster than tanks can leave the hangars. So far, India is holding on — against the background of growth, reserves and confidence. Pakistan is on the brink. But even the most resilient markets won’t last if the gunshots don’t subside.
War Without Borders: How the India-Pakistan Conflict Affects Civilians
While the world is counting fighter jets and missiles, thousands of people in border villages on both sides are just trying to survive. For them, this war is not a strategy, but lost homes, fear of raids, inability to fetch water or send a child to school. The humanitarian cost of the conflict is already real and it is growing every day.
After the Indian strikes on May 7 on several targets in Pakistan died at least 26 people. Among them were women and children. Spontaneous resettlement has begun in Pakistani villages near the Line of Control — people are moving inland to escape possible repeated shelling. The Pakistani authorities do not officially recognize the “refugees”, but the local media record the mass exodus.
More than 800,000 Afghans now live in Pakistan ran away after the Taliban came to power. And on them now directed exit policy: deportation without security guarantees. The UN and Doctors Without Borders warn: this threatens a humanitarian catastrophe just in the shadow of a new conflict.
After the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, the Indian authorities answered “in full”: more than 2,000 arrests in Kashmir, destroyed houses of suspects, raids at night, closed schools. The authorities explain this as a “fight against terrorism”, but human rights defenders talk about collective punishment, suppression of freedom of speech and fear among civilians.
International organizations, including the UN, are called both sides to allow humanitarian missions to the affected areas. But in the conditions of military rhetoric, closed zones and fear of provocations, help is minimal. People in the border areas are left alone with their fear.
In every war there are those who are not talked about. These are children who are being evacuated from border schools. Women who are afraid to leave the house. People who are taken without a warrant. And while the generals determine where exactly the “red line” is, for many it has long been crossed.
Kashmir today is not only a battlefield, but also a zone of silent humanitarian disaster. And while the big players are measuring themselves with missiles, ordinary people on both sides of the Line of Control are paying the real price for this war.
When war becomes a matter of arithmetic: who is stronger – India or Pakistan?
While the world is closely watching every move on the Line of Control in Kashmir, military analysts have already crunched the numbers. Both countries — with a nuclear button and with armies of millions. But who has the real advantage if the conflict escalates from words to full-scale confrontation?
India has one of the largest armies in the world – more than 1.4 million active soldiers and more than 1 million reservists. It has more than 4,000 tanks, thousands of artillery installations and powerful logistics.
Pakistan is much smaller: approximately 650,000 troops and 2,500 tanks. But he is compensates it is mobility, quick transfer of units and knowledge of the terrain in the border areas. His army is adapted to fighting in mountainous conditions.
India has more than 700 combat aircraft, including the French Rafale, the Russian Su-30MKI and the modernized Mirage 2000. And also the S-400 air defense system, which is capable of intercepting missiles at hundreds of kilometers.
Pakistan has fewer aircraft (about 450), but they include American F-16s and Chinese JF-17s. The latest versions have modern avionics and are used for both interceptions and strikes.
Pakistan has almost no chance here. India has two aircraft carriers, more than 30 large ships and 16 submarines, including nuclear missile carriers. Pakistan has only 8 submarines and 10 frigates, mostly Chinese-made.
India has BrahMos, Pralay and Nirbhay tactical missiles. Also in service are MQ-9 Reaper drones (made in the United States), which are capable of delivering high-precision strikes.
Pakistan is not far behind: it has Fatah-II missiles and Chinese CH-4 drones, which have been actively used for surveillance and attacks in the Balochistan region.
Both countries are waging an “invisible war” in cyberspace. India launched the “Operation Sindoor” program to protect critical infrastructure, and Pakistan is actively investing in creating cyber intelligence.
India and Pakistan have approximately 170–200 nuclear warheads each. The difference is in the doctrines. India officially adheres to the principle of “No First Use”, that is, it does not use nuclear weapons first. But Pakistan openly reserves the right to a “preemptive strike” if it believes that its survival is in danger.
From navy to aviation, India has a quantitative and qualitative advantage. But Pakistan is betting on speed, tactical missiles, cyber warfare and nuclear deterrence. In reality, everything boils down to deterrence, because even the largest army cannot protect against a nuclear catastrophe.
…When oil rises even before full-scale fighting begins, when phone chips are threatened by aviation changes, and every new headline crashes the stock markets, this is no longer a distant Kashmir issue. It is not about “there”, but about “here”. In a world where goods turn over in hours and the fear of war in minutes, there are no “local conflicts”, there are only global consequences.
India and Pakistan are keeping their fingers on the nuclear buttons, the world is silent, China is nervously counting billions, and the Afghan camps are already packing things for a new survival march. When geopolitics is not about negotiations, but arrests at night, when the numbers from the reports turn into real deaths, the main question remains: is the world ready to wake up before a cloud over Karachi or New Delhi becomes a new beginning – not history, but its end?
Tetyana Viktorova
