IA “FACT” already reported on the escalation between India and Pakistan after the terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 23. India blamed the TRF and responded by cutting diplomatic ties with Pakistan, closing the border, making arrests and canceling key agreements. Pakistan, in turn, threatened to strike if its sovereignty was violated.
On the night of May 7, India started Operation Sindur and launched missile strikes on targets in Pakistan and Kashmir it controlled, saying the targets were terrorist camps. Pakistan called it an act of war and reported the death of at least eight civilians. Islamabad airport was temporarily closed, flights were diverted to Karachi.
In response, Pakistani forces raised combat aircraft. More than two dozen dead are reported. Islamabad has claimed the downing of five Indian jets, which has yet to be independently confirmed. India acknowledges the possible loss of fighter jets, which evokes associations with the 2019 crisis.
Despite the scale of the attack, both countries demonstrate Restraint: India emphasizes the localized nature of the strikes, allowing the Modi government to satisfy public demand for a response without resorting to full-scale war. Pakistan, despite the loss, does not seek direct confrontation due to its difficult economic situation. Military experts on both sides are calling on the international community to intervene.
Modi Plays on Nationalism, Army Rules Pakistan: Escalation Mirrors Internal Crisis
The current escalation has become a catalyst for internal political changes in each of the countries. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in the pre-election year again uses theme of Pakistan to mobilize the electorate. He used the same strategy after the Pulwama terror attack in 2019. Now, after the airstrikes on the territory of Pakistan, its popularity is growing again.
The opposition criticizes this tactic, considering it manipulative and aimed at diverting attention from domestic problems, in particular, economic inequality. However, Modi’s nationalist rhetoric continues to resonate with a significant portion of the electorate.
In Pakistan, the military led by General Asim Munir actually control a political process that weakens the role of the civilian government and raises concerns. The economy remains in a critical state: debts, inflation, dependence on the IMF. The government cannot afford a long war, because it threatens to collapse.
Despite the sharp statements, both sides have so far refrained from an open armed conflict. International players are calling for de-escalation, but there is a lack of trust between Delhi and Islamabad does the situation unstable.
In the Shadow of War: How the TRF and Lashkar-e-Taiba Turn Escalation into a Ground for Terror
While the official armies are shelling, in the shadows, forces that are not subject to any state, in particular, the TRF, are active. This organization appeared in 2019 after India revoked the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir. It has close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
TRF leads guerrilla warfare: point attacks, police killings, attacks on tourists. In the conditions of military escalation, such organizations receive an ideal ground for recruitment and action. India has repeatedly reported on the preparation of terrorist attacks, caches of weapons and transfers of cryptocurrency.
Pakistan officially denies involvement with extremists. But analytical reports indicate to the ISI’s longstanding ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Even the trials against some militants look more like temporary concessions by the West than a real fight against terrorism.
As long as civilian authority is weak and Kashmir is transformed into a regime of tight control, it is terrorist groups that may emerge as the biggest beneficiaries of this escalation.
War of fakes and hashtags: how Pahalgam became the trigger of the information battle
After the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, the conflict moved to the digital plane. In Pakistani social networks unfolded the #IndianFalseFlag campaign — claiming that India itself orchestrated the attack. Videos were circulated that turned out to be fakes, including footage of old protests.
In response, India blocked dozens of accounts and 16 YouTube channels, accusing them of promoting terrorism. Simultaneously in the infospace spread unreliable statements about allegedly shot down Indian planes – videos that turned out to have been shot last year in Maharashtra.
Indian social networks were flooded with patriotic slogans. Modi’s election campaign is unfolding against the background of “national dignity”. In Pakistan, sentiments are divided: the number of calls for peace is increasing, despite the government’s harsh rhetoric.
Today is war is being conducted not only on the battlefield, but also on Telegram, TikTok and Twitter. And every fake in these environments can become a trigger for a new attack.
On the brink of a major war: The Kashmir conflict is a step to the point of no return
The conflict has already crossed the border of airstrikes, but the key “red line” has not yet been crossed: it is about the possibility of a ground operation across the Line of Control in Kashmir. If one of the parties invades, it will mean the beginning of a full-scale war.
Another dangerous trigger could be an attack on civilian objects in large cities or strategic infrastructure. Pakistan has already warned of the possibility of a nuclear response in the event of such an escalation.
The activation of drones (MQ-9 Reaper in India and Wing Loong II in Pakistan), cyber attacks (over 300 Indian sites after the terrorist attack), and the activity of nuclear-armed submarines – all testifiesthat the conflict mechanism has already been launched. A mistake or random incident can become a point of no return.
World on edge: Global players powerless to stop new Kashmir war
After the first strikes, US President Donald Trump stated about readiness to help settle the situation. The United States is a key player in the region: it has deep ties with India and strategic experience of cooperation with Pakistan. But Delhi suspects Washington of diplomatic softness, and Islamabad of a pro-Indian stance.
China, Pakistan’s partner in the CPEC, is cautiously urging restraint as it seeks to avoid being drawn into a potential nuclear conflict near its border.
Pakistan also turned to Arab allies. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Turkey support a diplomatic settlement, but have no real influence on the conflict.
The UN is limited to statements. Neither player can force the sides to sit down before the next rocket is fired. The region still lacks a permanent crisis communication channel, despite the lessons of Kargil, Pulwama and Balakot.
The international community has only a few days to prevent a catastrophe. Otherwise, the time for talking will end.
…Next time we will look at how Afghanistan, Iran and Bangladesh reacted to the events. Different in scale and political orientation, these countries faced a difficult choice: to remain neutral or to make a geopolitical bet that could change the tables in the region for years to come.
The situation is already caused serious risks to regional trade, logistics and energy security. Major land routes are under threat and seaports are under increased surveillance. Disruption of the supply of fuel and raw materials raises prices on domestic markets. India and Pakistan feel it the most painfully: exchange rates are unstable, stock markets show a nervous reaction, inflationary expectations are growing. For Pakistan, which has a high debt and has already been in a crisis situation, the current turbulence could prove critical.
International investors are closely following the development of events. Of particular concern is the fate of infrastructure projects, in particular the “One Belt — One Road” initiative in Pakistan. Instability at the borders, risks to the safety of the workforce, the unpredictability of government decisions — all this calls into question the further funding and implementation of strategic facilities.
In parallel is growing concern over the possible displacement of the civilian population. There are already the first unconfirmed reports of people leaving the border areas, fearing an escalation. Whether it is possible to talk about an organized evacuation or a mass escape is still unknown. At the same time, the question arises: are humanitarian organizations able to work in a tense situation? Access to the region is limited, the issue of personnel safety remains open.
All this background forms a request to understand the real military potential of the parties. What are the land, air and sea forces – not only on paper, but also in mobilized form? The quality of weapons, their compliance with modern conditions, the level of logistical preparation and the ability for long-term operations are becoming key factors. The number of mobilized is an important, but not the only parameter. The experience of participating in modern conflicts, in particular in the conditions of a hybrid war, can determine the outcome no less than the size of the army.
In the following material, we will try to compare official data with the real situation on the ground, study the structure of the military command of both countries, and also consider the potential scenario of the development of the conflict, taking into account internal and external factors.
Tetyana Viktorova
