Pakistan News
Pakistan’s Strategic Masterstroke: Downing Rafales and Shifting the Balance
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 the wake of India’s recent missile strikes on Pakistan—targeting nine sites, including mosques and civilian infrastructure—the balance of power in South Asia has been dramatically disrupted. While Indian media boasted of its precision strikes, an alternative and far more consequential narrative emerged from within India itself. Eyewitnesses, social media users, and independent sources reported the downing of five Indian fighter jets, including three Rafale aircraft—France’s most advanced export fighters, considered the pride of the Indian Air Force.
If confirmed through independent validation, the loss of these highly sophisticated jets would constitute a military and symbolic setback far greater than the one India sustained during the 2019 Balakot episode. Unlike that episode—where a MiG-21 was shot down and its pilot captured—this time the aircraft were reportedly destroyed without even crossing into Pakistani airspace. The destruction of these jets within Indian territory marks a devastating blow to India’s aerial supremacy, while simultaneously showcasing the evolving technological edge of Pakistan’s defense apparatus.
According to local accounts, defense analysts and independent reports the Indian jets lost communication with ground control and each other mid-flight, with their navigation and command systems abruptly disabled. Strikingly, mobile networks in areas surrounding the incident reportedly collapsed, hinting at a broader electromagnetic jamming operation—a capability rarely demonstrated so visibly in the subcontinent.
This capacity, analysts suggest, stems from Pakistan’s historical partnership with the United States. During the Cold War and especially the post-9/11 War on Terror, Pakistan served as a frontline state and a major non-NATO ally. In this role, it received extensive U.S. training, funding, and technology to jam and intercept militant communications across the Afghan border. Over time, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military have mastered and localized these tools. Now, that expertise appears to have been redirected toward conventional military threats—with extraordinary results.
The most strategically alarming element for India is that these aircraft were reportedly neutralized within its own territory. This defies conventional engagement rules and shatters the illusion of sanctuary previously associated with Indian airspace. Pakistan’s capability to inflict such damage without physically breaching Indian skies gives Islamabad a decisive psychological and operational edge.
Furthermore, this development underscores India’s vulnerability in future conflicts. Despite extensive modernization and foreign defense procurements, including the multibillion-dollar Rafale deal with France, India’s air defense systems failed to protect its assets from remote disablement and destruction. That vulnerability, exposed by Pakistan without escalation into full-blown war, may trigger a long-term reassessment of India’s military readiness and aerial strategy.
India’s initial missile strikes, while lethal—killing at least 28 civilians and damaging religious sanctuaries—have now been counterbalanced by Pakistan’s tactical retaliation. The destruction of five premier aircraft, particularly the Rafales, serves as both military deterrent and political message. It reflects a sophisticated and proportionate response: Pakistan absorbed the blow, demonstrated capability, and reclaimed initiative—without overstepping into recklessness.
But Islamabad has not yet retaliated with a missile strike of its own. Instead, it has opted for a strategic pause, allowing the psychological pressure to build within Indian corridors of power. This calculated restraint serves multiple goals: it signals maturity, garners international respect, and keeps India in a constant state of anticipation, with its armed forces on high alert—an expensive and exhausting condition to maintain.
This waiting game has gripped India’s leadership, military, and public. Every hour that Pakistan delays its next move deepens Indian anxiety. Troop deployments remain on standby. Fighter jets scramble at false alarms. Decision-makers face mounting political and public pressure to either escalate or retreat.
The paralysis is palpable. For India, this is a worst-case scenario: an adversary that has drawn blood, seized momentum, and now holds the power to dictate the tempo of conflict. With the memory of five aircraft incinerated on home soil, Indian morale is visibly shaken.
Should Pakistan decide to launch a missile-based counterstrike, it is expected to avoid areas like East Punjab—home to India’s Sikh population and the Khalistan movement. Pakistan is unlikely to target regions sympathetic to separatist causes, particularly given its longstanding rhetorical and diplomatic support for Sikh self-determination. Instead, deeper strikes into India’s urban and military infrastructure are on the table. Major command centers, weapons depots, or intelligence facilities linked to anti-Pakistan operations—such as alleged support for BLA militants or anti-state actors in Balochistan—are possible targets.
Pakistan’s security apparatus has long accused Indian agents, including those like Kulbhushan Jadhav, of fostering instability through direct support of the Baloch insurgency and Pakistan-based terror cells. Any retaliatory operation by Pakistan may therefore be framed not just as strategic but also as counter-terrorist in nature—seeking to dismantle what Islamabad sees as India’s covert war within Pakistani borders.
In this fragile equilibrium, nuclear deterrence plays a silent but powerful role. Both India and Pakistan maintain credible second-strike capabilities. However, analysts believe that tactical nuclear superiority, particularly in battlefield-ready deployments, now lies with Pakistan. This asymmetry reinforces the perception that any large-scale conflict would end in mutually assured destruction, dissuading India from escalating beyond conventional limits.
Yet, the downing of aircraft without resorting to nuclear signaling gives Pakistan a new avenue of response—one that is potent yet non-apocalyptic. It affirms that Islamabad can punish aggression without inviting global alarm, thus reclaiming space for calibrated, tech-driven deterrence.
With each passing hour, the strategic pendulum swings further in Pakistan’s favor. India’s rash missile strike—perhaps meant to bolster domestic support or avenge perceived slights—has now backfired spectacularly. Its air force lies bruised, its political elite cornered, and its public haunted by uncertainty. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s decision to delay a missile-based counterattack, while visibly preparing for it, has turned this into a psychological siege.
The question now is not if, but when Pakistan will strike—and how deeply. By choosing the right moment, possibly when India lowers its guard or assumes the storm has passed, Pakistan can deliver a blow that not only balances the score but teaches a lasting lesson. One that redefines red lines, reasserts strategic parity, and restores deterrence in a volatile region where perception often defines reality.
Until then, India waits—nervously, restlessly, sleeplessly—for Pakistan’s next move.
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?
