Connect with us

Pakistan News

Pakistan’s Impregnable Strategic Deterrence

Published

on

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 : The story of Pakistan and India’s strategic rivalry is as old as the two nations themselves. Since their creation in 1947, both countries have fought multiple wars, engaged in intense military standoffs, and maintained a constant state of strategic vigilance. While the battles on the field ended decades ago, the competition in defense, deterrence, and doctrine continues in full force. At the heart of this enduring standoff lies a surprising reality: despite being smaller in size, economy, and military resources, Pakistan has managed to establish a credible strategic balance with its much larger neighbor, India. This balance has not only deterred war but has stabilized the region in the shadow of recurring crises.
India, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion and an economy nearing $4 trillion, has clear quantitative advantages over Pakistan, whose population is around 250 million and economy hovers near $341 billion. On paper, India outmatches Pakistan in nearly every conventional military metric—from troop strength and defense budget to the volume of arms imports and defense-industrial capacity. However, Pakistan, through strategic ingenuity, tactical precision, and smart resource allocation, has achieved what military theorists term as a “kinetic strategic balance.”
To understand how such balance is achieved, especially between asymmetrical powers, one must examine the strategic balance formula developed and widely accepted among military analysts and defense planners. It is expressed as:
{Strategic Balance} = \frac{M_1}{M_2}
where “M” represents the overall military capability of each state, derived from multiplying five core factors:
M = F \Q \T \E \N
In this equation:
F stands for force size, which includes not only the number of active duty soldiers but also reserve personnel and paramilitary forces.
Q reflects the quality of weapons and equipment, taking into account technological sophistication, modernity, and battlefield effectiveness.
T represents the training and doctrinal maturity of the armed forces, their readiness, discipline, and capacity to execute strategies under pressure.
E signifies economic capacity—the ability of a country to sustain military operations over time, fund innovations, and manage logistics.
N measures nuclear capability, including the size, delivery mechanisms, and credibility of the nuclear deterrent.
Let’s apply this formula to India and Pakistan using approximate and normalized scales. India’s overall active military personnel number around 1.45 million, supplemented by an additional million in reserves and another million-plus in paramilitary units. Pakistan maintains roughly 654,000 active troops, 550,000 in reserve, and nearly half a million paramilitary personnel. On a scale of 1 to 10, India’s force size scores a 10 while Pakistan’s earns around 6.5.
In terms of weapon quality, India operates advanced systems such as Rafale fighter jets, S-400 air defense systems, and is building up a blue-water navy. Pakistan relies on a diversified mix of Chinese, American, and Turkish platforms, with domestic capabilities like the JF-17 fighter jet and Babur cruise missiles. India’s score on this scale would be around 8, with Pakistan close behind at 6.5.
Training and doctrine are where Pakistan edges closer to parity. Over decades of direct and indirect conflict, Pakistan’s military has evolved into a highly professional, strategically nimble force. It has effectively adopted doctrines of hybrid warfare, swift retaliation, and nuclear ambiguity. India’s larger forces sometimes suffer from organizational inertia, though efforts at modernization are ongoing. On this front, Pakistan may rate an 8, while India scores a 7.
Economically, the gap is stark. India’s economy is nearly ten times larger than Pakistan’s, and its defense budget—exceeding $83 billion—dwarfs Pakistan’s $9.6 billion allocation. This difference affects everything from procurement cycles to research and development capacity. On this scale, India scores a full 10, while Pakistan reasonably scores about 3.
Finally, the nuclear equation offers one of the most stabilizing forces in the strategic balance. India is believed to possess around 164 nuclear warheads with the capability to deliver them via air, land, and potentially sea. Pakistan holds an estimated 170 nuclear warheads and has developed tactical nuclear weapons like the Nasr missile system to deter India’s “Cold Start” doctrine. Both countries score roughly equal in nuclear capability at 8.5 each, though with different strategic philosophies—India embracing “No First Use” and Pakistan maintaining deliberate ambiguity.
When we multiply these normalized scores, India’s kinetic military capability index amounts to:
10.8.7.10.8.5 = 47,600
Pakistan’s equivalent score is:
6.5.6.5.8.3.8.5 = 9,004
The final ratio, therefore, is:
{47,600}/{9,004}=approx 5.3
This 5.3:1 balance heavily favors India in pure kinetic potential. Yet, military history and modern strategic thinking teach us that war is not determined by ratios alone. The question is not just whether one side can win—but whether it can win without unacceptable costs. And it is precisely here that Pakistan has succeeded in establishing deterrence. Its nuclear capability, doctrinal evolution, and war-readiness have made it abundantly clear that any full-scale Indian aggression would invite unbearable retaliation, regardless of conventional superiority.
The long peace since the 1971 war is a testament to this equilibrium. Even the 1999 Kargil conflict, initiated by Pakistani forces, remained limited in scope and quickly drew international mediation. Afterward, both countries adopted more robust postures: India developed doctrines for rapid retaliation, while Pakistan responded with battlefield nuclear readiness. The result has been a tense yet stable balance—volatile at the surface, but deeply anchored in mutual deterrence.
To illustrate this concept more clearly, we can compare it to the relationship between the United States and Canada. The U.S., with a defense budget over $850 billion and global power projection capabilities, is militarily incomparable to Canada, which spends under $30 billion and does not possess nuclear weapons. Yet, the two nations have enjoyed peaceful borders and extensive defense cooperation for over a century. Canada does not attempt to match U.S. military capabilities but instead relies on institutional trust, shared values, and alliance structures like NORAD and NATO. It has deterrence not through power parity, but through political and structural integration.
In contrast, Pakistan has no alliance structure with India, no institutional trust, and no history of mutual defense. It must therefore achieve balance through direct capability and posture—especially nuclear. And despite overwhelming asymmetry on paper, Pakistan’s strategic deterrence has worked. It has denied India the ability to impose its will militarily without facing existential risks in return.
In the final analysis, strategic balance is less about overpowering an adversary and more about rendering war unthinkable. Pakistan’s success in creating this balance—despite economic challenges and numerical inferiority—demonstrates that military deterrence is not reserved for the rich or powerful. It is a function of clarity, innovation, and above all, credibility. The kinetic balance formula, when correctly understood and applied, offers not just a measure of military might—but a blueprint for peace through proportional deterrence.

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow

Published

on

By

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/

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Trending