IT was April 1994. Pakistan’s army chief Gen Waheed Kakar was on an official visit to Washington. Pakistan was under military and economic sanctions imposed by the US on the nuclear issue in 1990. As a result, a wide range of military equipment including 28 F16s that Pakistan had paid for was embargoed.

Against this backdrop, the nuclear issue dominated most of Gen Kakar’s meetings. In one meeting with top US military and State Department officials, which I also attended as Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, our American interlocuters offered to release all our equipment including the planes if Pakistan agreed to freeze its nuclear programme and allow a one-time inspection to verify a cap on enrichment. Gen Kakar listened patiently and then politely told his hosts: “Gentlemen, I come in friendship but we in the East do not measure our relationship in planes and tanks. You can keep our F16s and our money. Our national security is non-negotiable.”

I recall this meeting as one example of how resolutely and uncompromisingly Pakistan maintained its position on an issue vital to its security. Had it not done so and caved into international pressure it would not have acquired the nuclear capability which is and has been the guarantor of the country’s security. There has been no all-out war between Pakistan and India since both neighbours became nuclear powers, despite regular crises, skirmishes and military confrontations.

The latest crisis has again thrown this into sharp relief. True, India has acted on its doctrine of limited war under the nuclear threshold, to try to push the boundaries and enlarge space for this in every successive crisis. It has also become the first nuclear power to attack another nuclear state by missiles and air strikes. It has sought to create a ‘new normal’ by launching kinetic actions in mainland Pakistan whenever there is a terror attack in occupied Kashmir, for which it holds Pakistan responsible without evidence.

Pakistan’s strategic capability remains the guarantor of its security against a full-scale war.

In the latest crisis, India used all the instruments of modern, hybrid warfare — ballistic missile strikes, drones, disinformation, psy-ops and weaponising water to undermine deterrence. But Pakistan’s conventional capabilities deterred India from provoking an even larger conflict. Pakistan’s counteractions (initially downing Indian fighter aircraft) imposed heavy costs on India for its aggression. Retaliating to the second round of unprovoked Indian attacks, including on its air bases, Pakistan launched a military operation involving air strikes, missiles and armed drones against Indian military bases and infrastructure in and much beyond Kashmir. A ceasefire followed soon after brokered by Washington and announced by President Donald Trump.

Pakistan’s military response was designed to re-establish deterrence while blunting the aims of limited war and thwarting India’s effort to seek space for conventional war under the nuclear overhang. India’s reckless actions escalated the crisis to a dangerous level and drove it into uncharted territory — almost to the edge of all-out war. But its military brinkmanship had to stop well short of Pakistan’s known nuclear red lines. Thus, were it not for the nuclear factor, a full-scale war could have broken out.

https://www.dawn.com/news/card/1909301

The story of Pakistan’s pursuit of a nuclear capability is worth recalling to remind ourselves of the formidable challenges that were faced — and overcome — to acquire it. Confronted with an implacable adversary Pakistan initially pursued a strategy of external balancing by forging military alliances with the West to counter India and its hegemonic ambitions.

But the lesson of the country’s defeat and dismemberment in 1971 was that it could only depend on itself for its security. India’s nuclear explosion in 1974 was a turning point. It convinced Pakistan of the imperative to acquire nuclear weapons. Western countries, however, sought to punish Pakistan for India’s explosion by adopting discriminatory policies and denying it technology.

Pakistan faced innumerable obstacles in its nuclear journey. It braved Western embargoes, sanctions and censure, US opposition and unrelenting international pressure to stay the course. It took the country 25 years of arduous effort to build a strategic capability and even longer to transform that into an operational deterrent with an effective delivery system. That objective could not have been achieved if successive civilian and military governments had not all pursued this regardless of costs but confident that a firm national consensus backed the effort.

The book Eating Grass by Feroz Khan, published some years ago, describes the fascinating interplay between geostrategic shifts, key political and scientific figures and evolution of strategic beliefs, which shaped Pakistan’s nuclear decisions. It is a riveting insider account of the country’s quest for a nuclear capability and the challenges it encountered. Its title is inspired by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s much-cited remark that if India built the bomb, “we will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own”.

https://www.dawn.com/news/card/1756369

Khan explains how Pakistan mastered the nuclear fuel cycle despite heavy odds. He credits this not to a few individuals but to the collective determination of hundreds of people in the civil-military establishment. However, what ultimately determined nuclear success was the cadre of scientists and engineers whose talent was tapped in the country’s early years and who were motivated by the resolve not to let India’s strategic advances go unanswered.

A book that focuses on a different aspect of Pakistan’s nuclear journey is The Security Imperative: Pakistan’s Nuclear Deterrence and Diplomacy by Zamir Akram, an outstanding diplomat. Nuclear diplomacy played a critical role in the country’s efforts to develop a strategic capability which Akram chronicles with illuminating insights. A key theme of his book is how Pakistan’s diplomacy navigated through the discriminatory landscape erected by the West, while advancing its nuclear and missile programmes.

As a diplomat I witnessed first-hand the international pressure mounted on the country. Pakistan was asked to unilaterally sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, agree to inspection of its nuclear facilities, sign up to negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty in the UN’s Conference on Disarmament and curb its missile development. Pakistan said no to all of the above to protect its security interests.

Because of such decisions and the exceptional efforts of those who built Pakistan’s strategic capability its security is assured against a full-fledged war by India. Similar commitment is needed to deal with internal challenges, especially to build a strong, self-reliant economy so that the country is not vulnerable to external pressure.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2025

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he is ready to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin “personally” in Istanbul on Thursday for talks over ending the war.

His post came shortly after Donald Trump demanded Ukraine agree to Putin’s offer of direct talks between the two countries in Turkey.

“There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally,” Zelensky wrote.

He had earlier said his country was open to talks with Russia but only after a ceasefire was in place.

Western powers called for a 30-day pause in fighting to begin on Monday after European leaders spearheading the so-called “coalition of the willing” met in Kyiv on Saturday.

Putin’s offer of direct talks followed that intervention.

On Sunday Trump then posted on social media that Ukraine should agree to this “immediately” and it would provide clarity on whether there was a way to end the war.

“At least they will be able to determine whether or not a deal is possible, and if it is not, European leaders, and the US, will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly” he said, adding: “Have the meeting, now!”

In his post on X, Zelensky said he hoped Russia would agree to the ceasefire before the talks.

“We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy,” he said.

In a late-night address on Saturday, Putin invited Ukraine to take part in “serious negotiations” over the war, which began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Putin said he could “not rule out” the possibility that the talks could result in Russia and Ukraine agreeing “a new truce” – but did not address the calls for a 30-day ceasefire directly.

The Russian leader said: “This would be the first step towards a long-term, lasting peace, rather than a prologue to more armed hostilities after the Ukrainian armed forces get new armaments and personnel, after feverish trench-digging and the establishment of new command posts.”

Moscow has previously said that before Russia could consider a ceasefire, the West must first halt its military aid to Ukraine.

Russia and Ukraine last held direct negotiations in March 2022, in Istanbul, shortly after the Moscow launched its invasion.

On Saturday, the Ukrainian president played host in Kyiv to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz and Poland’s Donald Tusk, who later called Trump to discuss their plan.

Sir Keir later told the BBC the US president was “absolutely clear” that their suggestion of an immediate ceasefire was a “demand that must be met”.

Appearing at a news conference with Zelensky, they warned that “new and massive” sanctions would be imposed on Russia’s energy and banking sectors should Putin not agree to the unconditional 30-day ceasefire “in the air, at sea and on land”.

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 : In a defining moment of South Asian military history, the May 2025 conflict marked a dramatic shift in the regional power balance. A far smaller and economically constrained Pakistan demonstrated not only military and technological parity with India, but also surpassed its rival in strategic planning, diplomatic agility, and psychological warfare. What began as an act of hubris by New Delhi ended in national humiliation, with Islamabad emerging stronger and more respected on the global stage.
India’s offensive—initiated under the assumption of swift success and limited backlash—turned into a monumental miscalculation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, buoyed by inflated domestic support and a self-image of regional dominance, underestimated Pakistan’s preparedness and resolve. He hoped to win quick political dividends through a show of force, especially ahead of crucial elections. But Pakistan did not respond as expected.
Instead of reacting impulsively, Islamabad bided its time. It waited for international consensus to identify India as the aggressor. This restraint, seen as both wise and mature, allowed Pakistan to garner global sympathy while preparing a precise and proportionate response. When the counterstrike came, it was devastating — not in scale, but in effect. Pakistan’s military response was measured, disciplined, and surgically executed, exposing India’s vulnerabilities without breaching international law or targeting civilians.
Pakistan’s advanced capabilities—especially in electronic warfare, missile guidance, and air defense—were not just noticed by India, but also by Washington. The United States, viewing India as a strategic ally and regional counterweight to China, was jolted by intelligence reports detailing the scope and sophistication of Pakistan’s retaliation plans. The potential damage to India, had Pakistan fully unleashed its military might, was deemed catastrophic.
President Donald Trump convened his strategic team, led by Vice President JD Vance, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Real-time intelligence painted a grim picture: Pakistan’s counteroffensive was not only imminent, but could severely cripple India’s command-and-control infrastructure, disrupt key economic hubs, and dismantle its air defense shield.
JD Vance was dispatched to urgently communicate this intelligence to Prime Minister Modi. The message was blunt: any further escalation would result in irreversible consequences. The strategic calculus shifted instantly. Modi, once intoxicated with power and emboldened by false notions of invincibility, was brought to his senses. The once defiant leader now faced the reality of defeat, and with surprising haste, he accepted a ceasefire—grasping at the lifeline extended by U.S. diplomacy.
Pakistan’s military response was not merely reactive — it was the product of years of strategic planning and technological upgrades. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF), often underestimated, proved formidable. It not only neutralized Indian air incursions but used advanced jamming techniques to cripple enemy communications, rendering even India’s most prized Rafale jets vulnerable.
In the fiercest aerial dogfights witnessed in South Asia, five Indian aircraft — including three Rafales — were shot down. The weapon of choice: China-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles, deployed by JF-17 Thunder jets. The event sent shockwaves through global defense communities. How could lower-cost fighters and less-funded forces dismantle India’s French-made fleet? The answer lay in pilot skill, tactical discipline, and superior command integration — all areas where Pakistan excelled.
But it wasn’t just the air force. Pakistan’s missile defense systems intercepted multiple Indian drones and neutralized misfired projectiles that tragically landed within Indian territory — specifically in illegally occupied Kashmir and Indian East Punjab — causing civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. These errors highlighted India’s lack of coordination and systemic flaws within its military hierarchy.
India’s narrative — that Pakistan was the perpetual sponsor of cross-border terrorism — fell flat. The international community, increasingly skeptical of India’s claims, demanded verifiable evidence, which never materialized. The UN and European Union called for restraint and transparency. India’s allies grew uncomfortable with its unilateralism and recklessness.
Even U.S. officials, while committed to India strategically, privately acknowledged that New Delhi had acted without a clear objective and had exposed its military and diplomatic inadequacies. The global perception shifted: Pakistan was no longer the underdog or the provocateur. It was a disciplined, sovereign state defending itself with dignity and proportionality.
The economic cost to India was immense. Independent estimates suggest losses exceeding $2–3 billion during the short-lived but intense confrontation. These losses stemmed from destroyed aircraft, disrupted operations, investor panic, and infrastructural damage. Insurance premiums soared. Stock markets dipped. Foreign direct investment froze. The confidence of global investors in India’s stability took a hit.
India’s much-touted status as a future superpower faltered. It became clear that GDP growth figures and defense budgets mean little without crisis management skills and strategic prudence. Modi’s gamble backfired not just militarily, but economically and politically.
The psychological toll on India was profound. A country that regularly projected power found itself licking wounds, explaining failures, and managing embarrassment. The downing of Rafales — symbolic of India’s air dominance narrative — was especially damaging. The Indian public, initially fed a diet of patriotic fervor, began asking hard questions: Why were we so ill-prepared? Why did we misread Pakistan? Why did our technology fail?
Modi, the self-styled strongman, is now engaged in damage control. Once boasting of surgical strikes, he now faces accusations of recklessness. His leadership during the crisis is being questioned, not only by the opposition but by his own allies. The BJP’s political capital is eroding as its strategic misadventure unfolds.
Pakistan, on the other hand, emerged with its head high. It didn’t seek war but proved it wouldn’t be cowed by one. Its leadership — both civilian and military — acted with restraint and precision. The world took note.
This wasn’t just a military victory. It was a political and psychological triumph. It reminded regional powers and the global community alike that smaller nations with grit, unity, and strategic clarity can defend their sovereignty against larger, more arrogant foes.
India’s defeat in this episode is a case study in the dangers of arrogance, miscalculation, and overconfidence. Military might unaccompanied by strategy is hollow. Economic power without responsibility is dangerous. And political bluster without foresight is self-destructive.
Pakistan’s victory was not just on the battlefield — it was in the realm of perception, restraint, and national dignity. It turned India’s misadventure into an inflection point, one that redefined the subcontinent’s strategic calculus.
India lost more than jets, missiles, and billions. It lost its narrative. Its aura of invincibility. Its diplomatic edge. Pakistan, in contrast, gained more than a ceasefire. It gained respect, reinforced deterrence, and reminded the world that real power lies in resolve, not rhetoric.