India’s war on terror: Will the West ‘stand up or kneel to fear?’

Konstantinos Bogdanos

Source Link

Kashmir burns, and war looms. After the April 22 terrorist massacre in Pahalgam, India strikes back, hammering nine Pakistani sites with “Operation Sindoor.” Pakistan’s airspace is shut, its leaders cry “act of war”, and nuclear sabres rattle. Will the West back India’s fight against Islamic terror, or choke on its own cowardice, scared of its Pakistani diaspora and trade deals, as China watches?

On April 22, 2025, 26 tourists -mostly Hindus- were slaughtered in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir. The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy, initially claimed the attack, targeting non-Muslims. India blames Pakistan’s secret service, ISI, long accused of fuelling jihadist proxies. Since then, the Line of Control, the military line between the Indian and Pakistani controlled parts of Kashmir, has erupted with skirmishes, drone shootdowns, and missile strikes. On May 6, India’s “Operation Sindoor” hit terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, killing militants but also civilians, per Pakistani claims. Pakistan vows a “robust response,” and war teeters on the edge.

India’s right to self-defence is ironclad. Like Israel battling Hamas or what America claimed after 9/11, India faces a terrorist enemy shielded by a state: Pakistan. The Pahalgam attack, a calculated atrocity, fits Pakistan’s “thousand cuts” strategy to destabilize India. Modi’s response -expelling diplomats, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, closing borders, and now missile strikes- is not escalation. It is survival. Any nation would act to crush such threats. India’s military, under “complete operational freedom”, is doing just that.

Russia’s Plans Are Bigger Than Conflict With the West or Camaraderie With China

Sophia Nina Burna-Asefi

Source Link

There is a serious disconnect between Western pundits and the reality on the ground when it comes to understanding the Kremlin’s thinking. The current popular narrative surrounding Russia and its neighbors boils down to the following: Moscow poses a threat to the purported liberal world order; Russia is “destined” to remain on the “sidelines” of global politics; Central Asia is a “battleground” for Russia, China, and the West; the Russian economy is being “crippled”; and finally, Russia is supposedly growing “dependent” on China.

There are two common ideas guiding these beliefs. First, Russia is simultaneously a powerful and influential giant and a weak actor. Second, the actions of Russia’s neighboring countries are subordinate to Moscow’s interests rather than intrinsically derived. But these narratives miss a big point: There are more layers of affect that shape the Kremlin’s thinking and its assessment of the so-called near abroad. The way to understand how Russia works is to try and get inside this longer-term mindset.

Putin’s Growing Interactions Along Its Southern and Eastern Borders Have Deep Roots

Despite the talk of an eventual peace in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will continue to step up in countries neighboring Russia, and the West needs to be better prepared. Areas to Russia’s south and east are considered particularly important to Putin. Putin’s Look East policy was first introduced in 2012, and predates the two Ukrainian wars. In the same year Russia adopted a critical new law, the 2012 Federal Law, which for the first time set a clear definition of the Northern Sea Route and its geographical scope.

Senior Officers Are Not the "Villain"

Steve Wills

Source Link

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plan to cut 20% of four-star officers and 10% of the rest of the general and flag officer community is yet another in a long series to manage what has been perceived as an excess of senior military leaders in the U.S. armed forces.

Critics of current flag officer numbers some times compare current rosters of admirals and generals to the much smaller number of such leaders relative to enlisted personnel during the Second World War. Large numbers of flag and general officers have been said to reduce efficiency and limit warfighting potential. Having more admirals and generals produces more retired officers in those ranks who often get accused of trying to influence defense acquisition choices as members of corporate boards after they retire. The real villain in this process is not the senior officers but rather the explosion of joint and interagency staffs since the end of the Second World War, and especially since the inception of the Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986. This growth in joint and interagency positions has in turn demanded a larger number of senior leaders to manage them. Any meaningful reductions in the general and admiral ranks must begin with a look at the staff swamp that created them.

China has spent billions developing military tech. Conflict between India and Pakistan could be its first major test

Nectar Gan, Simone McCarthy and Brad Lendon

Source Link

The escalating conflict between India and Pakistan could be offering the world a first real glimpse into how advanced Chinese military technology performs against proven Western hardware – and Chinese defense stocks are already surging.

Shares of China’s AVIC Chengdu Aircraft rose 40% this week, as Pakistan claimed it used AVIC-produced J-10C fighter jets to shoot down Indian combat aircraft – including the advanced French-made Rafale – during an aerial battle on Wednesday.

India has not responded to Pakistan’s claims or acknowledged any aircraft losses. When asked about the involvement of Chinese-made jets, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday he was not familiar with the situation.

Still, as Pakistan’s primary arms supplier, China is likely watching intently to find out how its weapon systems have and potentially will perform in real combat.

A rising military superpower, China hasn’t fought a major war in more than four decades. But under leader Xi Jinping, it has raced to modernize its armed forces, pouring resources into developing sophisticated weaponry and cutting-edge technologies.

Pakistan’s Best Chance to Save Its Economy

AASIM M. HUSAIN

Source Link

As the military confrontation between Pakistan and India continues to rumble, Pakistan’s economy could be caught in the crossfire. Two weeks after a terrorist attack in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, India launched a series of strikes on Pakistani territory. The ongoing crisis has fueled concerns that India may try to halt the flow of the Indus River into Pakistan – a threat that Pakistan’s struggling economy can ill afford.

Five decades ago, Pakistan had the strongest economy in South Asia, outperforming India, Bangladesh, and even Sri Lanka in terms of per capita income. Today, the opposite is the case: Pakistan’s per capita income is half that of its neighbors, and it trails them in education, health care, and most other development indicators. While macroeconomic mismanagement has contributed to this decline, an often overlooked – but equally significant – factor is rapid population growth.

When population growth outpaces income growth, per capita income falls. The long-term consequences are far-reaching: a larger population – especially one with a high dependency ratio – means lower household savings, less investment, and slower economic growth. Pakistan’s population has more than quadrupled over the past half-century, and 36% of its residents today are under 15 – far higher than the 22-25% share in Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka, where population growth has slowed dramatically in recent decades. As a result, the share of working-age Pakistanis remains below 60%, compared to just over two-thirds in the rest of South Asia.

Military Officers Respond to Stu Scheller

Source Link

How do you mold and choose better senior leaders in the uniformed military? A very interesting problem.

The unrestricted line communities do a pretty good job teaching new members how to be good at their particular warfare area/platform. But good (heck any) training on leadership skills is sorely lacking. Three decades ago, they tried to turn Deming’s TQM into TQL (leadership) but it was an abysmal failure. They pulled the plug and gave up. I did get a very good two-week command leadership course on my way to O-5 command but that was it. The Navy needs a leadership continuum that is required from O-3 to O-6. Some online is OK but classroom is still the best place.

As far as creating better operational and strategic leaders, the Navy’s problem is with their war college. The Navy only requires one (O-4/O-5 course or senior O-5/O-6 course) and they only do that grudgingly because Goldwater Nichols requires it. The Navy still believes that “Sailors belong on ships and ships belong at sea,” that everything else is a waste of time, unless you’re surface warfare.

The Army’s bold plan needs to watch out for these three pitfalls

John Ferrari

Source Link

As the Army prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, it appears poised for major changes, bolder than the Marine Corps Force Design effort. And as with the Marine’s Force Design push, the Army is almost certain to see some dissent from those who stand to lose from the new paradigm.

As the service tries to move fast, change its organizational structure, and rapidly acquire and integrate drones and other advanced technology-enabled weapons, leadership will have to withstand that pressure and hold firm.

Change of this scope is only possible because of the alignment of power and money. Internally, the Army’s entire leadership team is uniquely aligned in a way they have not been since the late 1970s. Much of the plan was clearly under development by Gen. Randy George before the arrival of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, but the two have so far appeared in lockstep, and having the plan officially rolled out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gives them top cover support for changes.

Perhaps most importantly, Congress has voiced limited objections to these changes, such as the potential reduction to the Blackhawk and some ground vehicles, and within the $150B reconciliation package, Congress is providing broad and flexible funding that is essential to carry out the procurement, at scale, of drones, network technologies, and AI infrastructure.