Pakistan News
Peace with dignity
AS escalation appeared on the cards with tit-for-tat missile and air attacks continuing between India and Pakistan, US President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social media platform that a US-mediated “full and immediate” ceasefire had been agreed between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours.
In the hours, even minutes before the Trump announcement, fears were mounting of a major escalation with India’s missile attacks against non-military targets followed by strikes against military bases in Pakistan and the latter’s retaliatory action targeting Indian military assets.
At that point, when the situation seemed poised on a knife-edge, the only certainty was that India’s attempt to set a new normal in carrying out attacks deep inside Pakistan after blaming the latter for its own security and intelligence and policy failures in held Kashmir had backfired spectacularly.
Whether among the five downed Indian warplanes, during the aerial fight with BVR (beyond visual range) weapons, after the first set of missile attacks on Pakistan earlier this week, were two French-made Rafale jets or three is immaterial.
As South Asia heaved a sigh of relief that a nuclear exchange had been averted, what next was the question on many minds.
What counts is that purchased at way over $250 million apiece, the state-of-the-art warplane, the perceived force multiplier, failed to project power as it was meant to and was effectively neutralised by weapons systems used by the Pakistan Air Force with stunning skill. The PAF’s most expensive J-10C fighter costs a fifth of the Rafale’s price tag.
PAF’s multiple kills seemed to have taken defence and modern aerial warfare experts by surprise. A cursory glance at the world media in general, and defence-related publications/ sites in particular, shows the fascination with how the Chinese-provided assets were used to lethal effect by the PAF.
It was this embarrassment that perhaps made immediate de-escalation difficult as India continued to talk of de-escalation while targeting Pakistani bases in the small hours of Saturday, provoking retaliation from Pakistan, which claimed huge successes in its missile/ air campaign including hitting the formidable Russian-made S-400 air defence missile site on an Indian Air Force base.
https://www.dawn.com/news/card/1909714
At a media briefing in New Delhi, the Indian military spokeswomen conceded ‘limited damage’ at three of their bases, while again reiterating they wanted to ‘de-escalate’. More or less as this briefing was happening another high-explosive drone strike on a PAF base in Sindh, near Hyderabad, was confirmed. Casualties, including fatalities, were feared.
This prompted concerns that Pakistan would also be compelled to retaliate in a spiralling confrontation. In such a rapidly escalating military conflict, miscalculations can happen, leading to untold repercussions, given the two nations are said to together possess some 300 tactical and strategic nuclear warheads and also tested, diverse delivery systems.
As South Asia and possibly the wider world heaved a sigh of relief that a possible, even if improbable, nuclear exchange had been averted, what next was the question on many minds. Would it be back to the future, a repeat of the past so many decades when a terrorist incident in India blamed on Pakistan would lead to fears of war with troops locked in eyeball to eyeball stand-offs as they have many times, before de-escalation?
Many Pakistanis and, I am sure, Indians, may have become accustomed to such recurrences every few years. But after the last round of tension triggered by the Pulwama attack in Indian-held Kashmir that left dozens of paramilitary soldiers dead in 2019 was the first instance of a ‘retaliatory’ strike on Pakistan soil and the downing of an IAF fighter and the capture of their pilot, as the PAF responded.
But attacking a forested area in Balakot, adjacent to Azad Kashmir where hostilities routinely erupt, and claiming a win was one thing, launching missile attacks on civilian targets deep inside Pakistan this week after last month’s Pahalgam terror attack was a different matter.
Pakistan, it turned out, was determined to robustly resist this attempt by India to set a new normal. The embarrassment of losing state-of-the-art aerial assets drove India to launch missile attacks on PAF bases. And the Pakistanis who appeared prepared and determined to hit back, did so, as per their claims, with telling effect and forced India to agree to a ceasefire.
Now many readers in India would consider the use of the word ‘forced’ unacceptable, given what they have been hearing in their government-controlled and dominated media and sanitised social media environment but they would do well to reflect what their government stance on talking to Pakistan has been.
After President Trump announced the ceasefire and congratulated both countries on displaying “common sense and great intelligence”, the more revealing and tell-tale tweet came from Secretary of State Marco Rubio who said Vice President J. D. Vance and he had engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials including the two prime ministers, the Indian foreign minister, the two national security advisers and the Pakistan army chief.
He commended the two prime ministers on their “wisdom, prudence and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace”. But the most significant part of his statement was that both the countries had agreed to “start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site”.
The timing or the place of these talks was not immediately known but whether these happen in Abu Dhabi, as was being speculated, or elsewhere, it wasn’t without significance that India shifted from its position of no talks with Pakistan “until the latter ends its support to terrorism”.
Like it usually happens between India and Pakistan, both will claim this as a win but it is clear that only one side moved from its stance on talks as Islamabad has repeatedly called on New Delhi to come to the negotiating table.
If a dialogue were to materialise indeed and India does not backtrack, then the real winners will be the people of the subcontinent, several hundred million of whom try and survive below the poverty line. A terrible war has hopefully been averted and perhaps the newly established balance of conventional power below the nuclear threshold will prevent future conflicts.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
Published in Dawn, May 11th, 2025
Pakistan News
Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.
Pakistan News
Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow
Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.
Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/
Pakistan News
Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed
Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.
Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.
Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.
The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.
The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.
Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.
Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.
In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.
The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.
The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.
It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”
The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.
Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News8 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
