Yves here. The India-Pakistan conflict has temporarily dropped out of the top slot in international news coverage, displaced by news that the US and UK are about to announce a tariff agreement. We’ll soon turn to an observation by Larry Johnson, that Pakistan is pointing strongly to US meddling as playing a role in its current hot conflict with India. This idea seems less strained when you factor in that Pakistan has turned to Russia, a strong ally of India back to the very days of its formation, to act as mediator. Further corroboration of Johnson’s thesis comes indirectly in an OilPrice post, which we are reproducing in full, how continuing hostilities would undermine China’s Belt and Road Initiative to link Asia to Europe by land transport.
The latest updates show that attacks continue. CNN described how Pakistan has vowed retaliation after Indian strikes into Kashmir and Pakistan. However, the news service also points out that Pakistan has made yet-to-be-substantiated claims to have brought down five Indian planes, including three French fighter jets and could declare victory based on that.
The reason this row is extremely perilous is that tit-for-tat exchanges don’t seem a likely outcome. Pakistan apparently drained its weapons supplies, at US urging, to support Ukraine, and is thus seriously outmatched by India in conventional forces. Worse, Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine has a low threshold for deployment. Pakistan regards its tactical nuclear weapons as a means to counter its shortfall (even before the Ukraine diversion) in conventional capacity. From Observer Research Foundation in Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons limit India’s conventional military options:
While the possession of nuclear weapons has added a new lethal arrow in the quiver of both nations, the introduction of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) by Pakistan injects a new element of uncertainty into this volatile relationship. Pakistan’s perceived threat from India which emanates from its structural, institutional, and military weaknesses, has prompted it to undertake military adventures in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999. Failing which, it has come to a broader strategic conclusion that the Indian military modernisation, enabled by rapid economic and technological strides, makes India conventionally superior. India’s conventional military superiority and Pakistan’s desire to neutralise it through its TNWs have shaped Pakistan’s defence build-up and its nuclear doctrine as a whole.
Newsweek, in a fresh story, describes how India has superiority even in its nuclear arsenal. However, as suggested above, Pakistan apparently compensates for that doctrinally having an itchy finger and weapons consistent with the fantasy of a limited nuclear strike. From Newsweek:
India has about 172 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan possesses roughly 170, according to the Arms Control Association. Despite their similar numbers, the countries diverge in nuclear doctrine. India publicly maintains an NFU doctrine….Pakistan has never adopted a similar policy and reserves the option of preemptive use.
Tactical Capabilities
India holds the advantage in missile range and strategic deterrence. Its Agni-V ballistic missile can reach up to 8,000 kilometers, enabling strikes deep into enemy territory. Pakistan’s longest-range missile under development, the Shaheen III, has a reach of about 2,750 kilometers. Pakistan also deploys tactical nuclear weapons, including the Nasr (Hatf-9), a short-range missile with a 70-kilometer range designed for battlefield use.
Military Strength
India outpaces Pakistan in active military personnel: 1.24 million in the army, 149,000 in the air force, and 75,500 in the navy. Pakistan has about 560,000 army troops, 70,000 in the air force, and 30,000 in its navy. India also operates a 13,350-strong coast guard.
Unfortunately, despite efforts to de-escalate the fighting, Pakistan’s prime minister has just pledged revenge. From Aljazeera:
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif says “we will avenge the blood of our innocent martyrs” after at least 31 people were reported killed and dozens wounded in India’s attack on Punjab province and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Heavy exchanges of artillery fire have been reported along the Line of Control dividing Indian- and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Nevertheless, it is possible that the fighting will stay at the ugly dustup level.
Now to Larry Johnson’s theory, via his Sonar21 website, Did Western Intelligence Play a Role in the Latest Terrorist Attack in Kashmir?:
While many uninformed Westerners might scoff at the idea, Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, accused India of staging a false flag. But Asif didn’t stop there. During an interview with Sky News, Asif admitted that Pakistan has been supporting and funding terrorist groups for about three decades, describing this as “doing the dirty work for the United States and the West, including Britain.” He acknowledged that this was a “mistake” and said Pakistan has suffered greatly as a result, especially by aligning with the West during the Soviet-Afghan war and the post-9/11 US-led war on terror…
Asif emphasized three key points:
Collaboration with Western Powers: Asif stated, “We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades, you know, the West, including Britain.” This comment was made in the context of discussing Pakistan’s historical role in supporting Western-led initiatives, which he suggests have contributed to the current challenges with terrorism.
Training of Mujahideen: Reflecting on Pakistan’s past decisions, Asif acknowledged that the country had trained Mujahideen fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war, stating, “We prepared them and now they have become terrorists.” He emphasized that Pakistan should not have engaged in such activities at the behest of other nations.
Critique of U.S. Military Actions: Asif has criticized the United States for its military interventions, noting that Pakistan has suffered due to its alliance with the U.S. He pointed out that the U.S. left behind high-tech weapons in Afghanistan, which have contributed to the rise in terrorism within Pakistan.
The attack in Pahalgam, at a minimum, was designed to disrupt further development of the area as a tourist destination. Still, in light of Asif’s remarkable confession, I cannot rule out something more nefarious by my former outfit or by Britain’s MI-6.
And now to OilPrice, which discusses how this conflict, if not resolved, could undermine Central Asian development as well as Mackinder-esqe approaches to integrate Eurasia and so dominate other geographies. And of course continuing hostilities between India and Pakistan could also impede BRICS initiatives. This piece admittedly describes worst-case scenarios, but “less bad but still bad” outcome would also have geopolitical and economic costs.
By James D. Durso, the Managing Director of Corsair LLC, a supply chain consultancy. In 2013 to 2015, he was the Chief Executive Officer of AKM Consulting, a provider of business development and international project management services in Central and Southwest Asia to U.S. clients in a variety of industries including telecommunications, homeland security, and defense. Originally published at OilPrice
- A war between India and Pakistan would significantly destabilize Central Asia, disrupting trade routes, delaying infrastructure projects, and increasing regional militancy.
- China, Russia, and the U.S. may intensify involvement in Central Asia, leveraging the conflict to protect or expand their influence.
- Potential nuclear fallout, refugee flows, and the breakdown of regional cooperation could severely impact Central Asia’s economic development, security, and food systems.
If India and Pakistan spiral into war, there will be consequences for Central Asia.
A war between Pakistan and India would likely have significant ripple effects on Central Asia, given the region’s proximity to Afghanistan and flourishing economic ties across the region. The conflict could disrupt trade and energy routes, increase militancy, and draw in major powers like China, Russia, and the U.S., potentially straining Central Asian stability.
Intervention by external powers: The Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan) are already arenas for competition among outside powers. A Pakistan-India conflict could draw these powers into the region more aggressively to secure their interests, though Russia is busy in Ukraine, Turkey is busy in Syria, and U.S. forces are fighting in the Middle East, and Washington is ready to confront China.
China is an ally of Pakistan and sponsor of the $65 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China might deepen its presence in Central Asia to secure trade routes and counterbalance India’s regional influence. This could accelerate Chinese investments in infrastructure and energy projects that will increase trade with the region that totaled $89 billion in 2023, up 27% from 2022, $60 billion of which was Chinese exports.
And China may make further inroads into the Central Asia arms market given Moscow’s need to dedicate all its resources to the Russia-NATO war in Ukraine. This will allow China to broaden its engagement beyond infrastructure projects into the security realm that, up to now, has been limited to anti-terrorism training and intelligence sharing in Tajikistan.
Russia is an ally of India, a buyer of Russian arms, having purchased $60 billion of Russian arms, 65 percent of its total weapons imports, over the past twenty years With its historical ties to Central Asia and shared membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Russia might leverage a conflict to reinforce the region’s border security, and increase intelligence sharing and security forces training.
And just in time, Russia has declared it will help the Taliban government fight the Afghan branch of the Islamic State, the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (IS-K).
The United States could focus on Central Asia to counter China and Russia, potentially increasing military or economic aid to Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, the major economies in the region. Unlike the leaders of Russia or China, no American president has ever visited Central Asia but President Donald Trump could signal increased U.S. attention by visiting the region.
Afghanistan as a flashpoint. Afghanistan, bordering both Pakistan and Central Asia, would likely become a hotspot. The Afghan Taliban’s support for the Pakistani Taliban, the Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP) could further destabilize Pakistan, presenting Islamabad with the prospect of a two-front war, though recent visits by Pakistan’s diplomats, and military and security officials seeking a “diplomat reboot” may be just in time to stanch action by the TTP.
Instability would come to Central Asia via Afghanistan in the form of refugees and energized militants, and economic stagnation in the delay of development projects like the Trans-Afghan railway, the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) natural gas pipeline, and the CASA-1000 renewable energy infrastructure construction project.
General disorder may spill insecurity into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where cross-border militancy (e.g., the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, and IS-K could surge.
And the instability will cause a slowdown in foreign direct investment that has steadily climbed as has foreign trade in goods and accession to bilateral investment treaties. The region’s economy suffered “lost decades” between the start of the Afghan civil war in 1992 and the end of the NATO occupation of Afghanistan in 2021 and has been making steady progress in connecting to the wider world economy; Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are completing the World Trade Organization (WTO) accession process, and Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are WTO members.
And just in time for a war, the World Bank is predicting economic slowdown for Central Asia: Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will suffer pronounced declines, Kazakhstan’s decline will be less pronounced, and Uzbekistan’s growth rate will remain steady at 5.9%.
The U.S. may try to leverage disorder on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan to pressure the Kabul government, but that risks empowering Al-Qaeda, IS-K, the hardline Taliban faction in Kandahar, or some combination of the three. Disorder in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, the poorest place in Pakistan, may energize the local separatists and draw in bordering Iran which faces a Baloch insurgence on its side of the border.
India’s Central Asian Ambitions. India’s efforts to access Central Asian and Afghan resources, via Iran’s Chabahar port, could be disrupted, forcing India to seek alternative routes or deepen ties with Russia and Iran, affecting regional alignments, and angering the U.S. which is trying to isolate Moscow and Tehran.
India imports uranium for its nuclear power program from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and an uninterrupted supply by the republics will be a sign to India they value their relationship with Delhi.
Trade Route Disruptions: Central Asia relies on connectivity projects like CPEC and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). A war could disrupt CPEC which links China’s Xinjiang province to Pakistan’s Gwadar port and passes through contested areas like Kashmir. India’s trade routes to Central Asia via Iran and Afghanistan could be jeopardized if conflict escalates or Afghanistan becomes unstable, though if Indian merchantmen are unmolested by Pakistan the impact may be minimized and they will be able to safely dock at Iranian ports.
Tightened border controls will hurt regional trade that was boosted by eased border controls that teased the possibility of a unified regional market, following the resolution of many territorial disputes, a process that began in earnest after the 2016 election of Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev.
The Central Asia republics trade with India and Pakistan and will be reluctant to be drawn into one side’s economic warfare on the other. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, the three largest economies in the region, all import packaged medicaments and vaccines from India and mostly food products from Pakistan, and may find it easier to replace the lower-valued agriculture products than disrupting their medical supply chain.
Pakistan and Kazakhstan recently inked a transit trade agreement that would see goods shipped from Central Asia through the Pakistani ports of Karachi, Bin Qasim, and Gwadar, and the start of direct flights between the countries. An India-Pakistan war will bring in the insurance companies who may cancel coverage to aircraft, trucks, and their cargoes, delaying the benefits of the deal.
Spillover of Militancy: A Pakistan-India war, especially if centered on Kashmir, could embolden extremist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed or Lashkar-e-Taiba, which have historical ties to Afghan and Pakistani militants. This could inspire increased terrorist activity in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where groups like the IMU and IS-K could exploit regional conflict for recruitment and radicalization.
Nuclear Risks: Both nations possess nuclear arsenals, less than 200 weapons each. Even a limited nuclear exchange could cause dire environmental and climatic effects, disrupting Central Asian agriculture and food security, and pretty much eliminating agriculture exports as customers fret about “contamination,” despite the prevailing westerly winds. In Uzbekistan, agriculture contributes about 25% to the Gross Domestic Product and employs about a quarter of the workforce, so the economic (and political) impact would be profound.
Conflict in Pakistan or Afghanistan could drive refugees into Central Asia, particularly Tajikistan, straining resources and sparking ethnic tensions, and destabilizing resource-strapped governments.
India and Pakistan are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as are several Central Asian states, and China and Russia. A war could paralyze SCO initiatives, hindering regional security and economic cooperation. Tensions might also exacerbate India-China rivalries within the SCO, affecting Central Asia’s balancing act.
Specific Impacts on Central Asian States
Tajikistan shares a porous border with Afghanistan, making it vulnerable to militancy and refugee inflows. India’s military training programs with Tajikistan could be disrupted, and its newly-refurbished (by India) Ayni Airbase base may worry Pakistan.) As a regional leader, Uzbekistan might seek to strengthen ties with Russia and China to counter instability, however, its trade with South Asia could suffer. Neutral but energy-dependent, Turkmenistan could benefit from Chinese energy demand. As the major Central Asia economy, Kazakhstan might leverage its SCO and Eurasian Economic Union ties to mitigate disruptions but could face energy market volatility. Kyrgyzstan is economically fragile and be hit hard by trade disruptions increasing reliance on China or Russia.
Long-Term Implications
Regional Polarization: Central Asia could become more divided, with some states aligning with China (e.g., Turkmenistan) and others with Russia or the West (e.g., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan), hindering regional unity, which may be in the interests of Washington, Beijing, Brussels, or Moscow.
Securitization: Fear of spillover could lead Central Asian states to increase security spending, diverting resources from economic development. More than half of Central Asia’s population is under 30 years of age and they have high expectations that governments are trying to satisfy by increasing educational and economic opportunity, and diversifying the economies away from agriculture and natural resource extraction, and towards technology, services, and tourism. And more security may come at the expense of civil rights.
Environmental Fallout: A nuclear conflict, even limited, could cause global climate disruptions, devastating Central Asia’s agriculture-dependent economies.
Conclusion
India has been active in Central Asia with its Connect Central Asia Policy, which aims to enhance trade, connectivity, and diplomatic engagement, and hinges on India’s development of Chabahar port in Iran, though the Trump administration rescinded the sanctions waiver on Chabahar. Washington’s fixation on Iran, specifically ruining its economy to press it for a favorable nuclear deal, may see India and Central Asia as collateral damage.
The republics import higher value goods from India (Packaged Medicaments) than they do from Pakistan (food products), and sell uranium – a strategic good – to India. India has a larger market than Pakistan and is a provider of technology products that Pakistan cannot match, and the republics’ future is with India, though they have no reason to antagonize Islamabad.
A Pakistan-India war would destabilize Central Asia by disrupting trade, fueling militancy, and intensifying great power rivalries. The region’s proximity to Afghanistan and reliance on connectivity projects make it particularly vulnerable. Central Asian states would face economic strain, security threats, and pressure to align with external powers, potentially fracturing regional cooperation. The nuclear risk underscores the catastrophic potential, with global climatic effects threatening Central Asia’s food security and economic stability. To mitigate these risks, Central Asian states might pursue neutrality, strengthen SCO ties, or seek mediation roles, but their limited clout may constrain effective responses.
Thank you, Yves.
It took a while for the latest flare up to get air time in Blighty.
It has been interesting to observe the BBC’s reporting, slanted towards India. Commentators who really know nothing have compared India to Israel and Ukraine, all countries fighting for freedom, “ours” even.
It was even suggested that the (post Brexit) trade deal just concluded between Blighty and India, worth a grand total of £66* per UK head by the end of the decade according to the Treasury, showed how Blighty’s alliances are evolving and commitment to India.
One hopes below the surface, the British authorities are paying attention. Fighting could spill over here.
*One wonders if that Brexit bonus will be sufficient to buy a superior single malt to celebrate.
well, this just has the stink of cia/mi6 all over it.
meet the new boss, and all….
At least during the First Cold War, the leadership had some semi rational policy goals as well as some maturity. The Dulles Brothers and people like Kissinger were evil, but a man can look at their actions and see some thought, while the current bunch seem determined to be suicidally destructive for no good reason.
One of the basic tenets in nuclear politics is known as The India Doctrine.
In 1971* during one of the India-Pakistan conflicts Pakistan stated “Pakistan retains the right to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.”
As can be imagined this caused a lot of concern right across the world.
India then stated its nuclear doctrine as follows:
“India makes no distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons. Any deployment of a tactical nuclear weapon by an enemy will be interpreted by India as a strategic threat and will thus incur a strategic nuclear response.”
This has been the default nuclear doctrine for every nuclear power ever since.
(*I keep thinking this was 1973, I’ll have to look it up)
The French have confirmed at least one downed jet.
New York Times reports 2 jets downing within Indian territory, basing its report on The Hindu’s own reporting (now redacted) which quotes at least three government sources. If true, this would explain India being able to pose like it didn’t take many losses.
I’ve seen videos and pictures of at least three “crashed” Indian fighters. And recovered parts of the Chinese PL-15 BWR missiles, which Pakistan claims to have used. And to me that’s the main point: merely an export version of PL-15 launched from Chinese fighter (J-10) is very capable weapon system against 4th generation fighters.
Pakistani spokesperson actually claimed that PAF limited the Indian casualties to five in order to not escalate, they could have shot down 15 or more. If true, this indicates that the PAF can, at the moment, engage from longer distances than IAF.
Hold on, so now we take reports and quotes from anonymous sources in the NYT as accurate reporting?
The French only confirmed one jet was lost. Pakistan also initially claimed to have captured multiple Indian soldiers but later redacted that claim. So their other claims of air superiority seem a little suspect. India has also claimed to have shot down a Chinese JF-17 but interestingly we aren’t hearing much about that.
Pakistan launched a second strike overnight consistenting of missiles and
drones against IAF targets, all were
neutralized by the S-400. India retaliated and destroyed the Lahore anti air defense installation (and likely consists of the Chinese HQ-9B). https://theprint.in/defence/indias-s-400-akash-take-down-several-pakistan-missiles-armed-drones-loitering-munitions/2619227/
Those pictures of supposed crashed planes are actually drop tanks. The fog of war remains so we will need to wait until things are clearer.
Yes, it will take a significant amount of time before any facts can be established. There are floods of faked videos and photos out there (even some supposedly reliable sources have been taken in by them). But French media is confirming the possibility that one Rafale was lost – seemingly well inside the Indian border, with another possibility (maybe a Mirage) within Pakistan. The only certainty is that both sides will massively overclaim.
As you suggest, the Indians somewhat stupidly have been openly signalling what they’ve been about to do, which may have given the Pakistani’s a very easy way to set up ambushes. Any conflict between the two is likely to be a competition to see which side is more incompetent.
I don’t know if “we” do. Never read NYT, and probably never will. I’m referring to anonymous sources in the internets, as in people posting videos and images and other people comparing them to the possible intact parts. It’s really hard to mix even badly mauled K-36DM ejection seat for a drop tank, though.
I don’t think the French were part of the fight, so why would they know more than anybody else? Especially if they have sales to lose…?
I was just saying that what I’ve seen, if true, would indicate Chinese weapon systems being a challenge to a certain superpower willing to challenge them in the Pacific area.
In no way or form was I trying to demean, belittle or make fun of the Indian Air Force or Air Defenses. Apologies if I got under your skin.
The French still provide service to the Indian Rafael planes and parts so I believe they are made aware of loss or issues as part of the EUA. Similarly how the US provides servicing to PAKAF for its F-16s so they are aware of losses, sorties launched etc. The Indian side did admit to losing an aircraft before retracting their statement. I was referring to photos which were actually drop tanks. https://x.com/Easybakeovensz/status/1920229338491785479
And you are correct that they could have lost more and the shoot downs were likely due to Chinese missiles which dispells any notion of their weapons being “junk”. However, if the reports regarding destruction of Chinese HQ9 are accurate then it also calls into question the capability of their anti air defense system (then again it could be more to do with the end users skills and experience rather then the system)
My gripe (not with you) is more with the media taking at face value Pakistani claims (much like how Ukrainian Defense Ministry claims are taken as gospel). Their defense ministry initially claimed to have taken Indian POWs and destroyed a brigade headquarters before retracting the statement. Which is why I’m a little suspicious of their other claims.
In any case no need to apologize. My initial comment could come off a little confrontational or accusatory, in which case I apologize. Will try to keep my tone in check.
‘But Asif didn’t stop there. During an interview with Sky News, Asif admitted that Pakistan has been supporting and funding terrorist groups for about three decades, describing this as “doing the dirty work for the United States and the West, including Britain.” ‘
In all fairness to Pakistan, it’s not like they had a lot of choice in the matter. President General Pervez Musharraf in his autobiography revealed the following-
‘The US threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” after the 9/11 terror attacks if then President General Pervez Musharraf did not cooperate with America’s war on Afghanistan.
In his memoir ‘In the Line of Fire’, Musharraf wrote that the threat was delivered by the tough-talking assistant secretary of state, Richard Armitage, in conversations with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief who was in Washington on a visit at the time of the 9/11 attack.
“In what has to be most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the (ISI) director general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age,” Musharraf wrote, explaining the situation he faced after the twin tower attack.’
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/us-threatened-to-bomb-pakistan-after-mumbai-terror-attacks-musharraf-memoir-2330821-2023-02-05
This was back during the Bush regime when he told the world that either they were with the US or they were with the terrorists. Musharraf probably thought that it would be a quick war and did not realize that the US would spend the next two decades tooling around in Afghanistan and entangling Pakistan more and more into their schemes.
There was a thorough 9/11 timeline by Paul Thompson that discussed the lead-up to 9/11 that is now difficult to find on the internet, perhaps because the author published a book called, not very creatively, The Terror Timeline.
I recall that it implied significant involvement or at least foreknowledge of 9/11 by Pakistan’s ISI, but I have not reviewed that website since at least ten years ago.
Thompson’s Timeline is an invaluable source on the history and context of 9/11. Here is an archived link, though there are probably later ones available:
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
For example, here is Thompson’s section on Pakistan and the ISI. It’s a large one, but just a quick skim through the entries is enlightening:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110224030136/http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=isi
For those with time constraints, this is a pretty interesting starting point:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110224030635/http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed
It does seem like an expanded conflict between Pakistan and India would benefit those seeking to isolate Iran, China and Russia.
I wonder what parties in the world would not worry about or mind a few nuclear bombs going off in the area?
You wonder what parties wouldn’t worry? USA, “What, me worry?”. The trade winds, mostly blowing to the east from that region, including China, would “filter” the radiation before it meandered to the good ol’ USA. Bonus antidote, wind directions around the world – a fun map: https://zoom.earth/maps/wind-speed/#view=18.8,77.9,4z/model=icon
For someone who was apparently a counter-terrorism analyst, Johnson seems curiously naive about Pakistan. I haven’t been to that part of the world recently, but the duplicity of the Pakistanis in playing all sides against the middle has always been acknowledged. None of the three points mentioned by Johnson is new, and none of them is more than half-true.
For Pakistan, with a much bigger and more powerful neighbour, Afghanistan has been the nearest thing to strategic depth they have. (Look at a map, and see where Islamabad is, relative to the frontier.) Inter-services Intelligence (ISI), the most powerful and feared part of government, has been responsible for generations for trying to ensure Pakistani control of Afghanistan. During the Russia invasion, Pakistan acted as a funnel for the massive financing from Gulf States, and for the volunteers from Arab and European states, organised by what was just becoming Al-Qaida. They also facilitated the US’s much more limited efforts. After the Russian withdrawal, they organised and trained the Taliban to be their surrogates in the country. During the US and NATO period, the Pakistanis were officially supporting their efforts (and occasionally did so) but were more concerned with ensuring Taliban control over strategic regions. It was well-known, for example, that the food that was served in canteens and messes in Kabul had to come overland by lorry through Pakistan, as did many other things. The traffic was controlled by ISI, and convoys had to pass “checkpoints” controlled by the Taliban, where they paid “fees” to be inspected. The US was perfectly aware that this money was going directly to finance the Taliban in Afghanistan, but they were helpless to do anything about it, because the Pakistanis could cut off US and NATO logistics any time they wanted to. During the same period, they also trained members of terrorist groups to strike against the West. None of these initiatives were forced on Pakistan, they all originated there in pursuit of what was seen as their national interest. And for what it’s worth it’s highly improbably that any US military equipment left in Afghanistan could be operated by ISIS-K in Pakistan, especially transported across a mountainous frontier.
More seriously, the Pakistani military, in my experience, has always been a lot more dedicated than the Indian military. They are all professionals (a major sacrifice in a country where people literally live in holes in the ground) and very highly motivated. Seeing themselves as always vulnerable to attack by their larger neighbour, their policy is to do whatever it takes to ensure national survival, including making alliances wherever they can, with whomever they can. But it’s doubtful if they really trust any other nation fully, except perhaps for China, with whom they have had close relations for decades.
From Larry Johnson by e-mail:
Wow … lets just go back to the 60s with the separation of PAK from India, massive immigration flows due to religion, and now India cut the water off at the north when in all 3 previous conflicts it never happened. Back to religion and how India is attempting some sort of religious Renaissance as a political move – see America.
This is antiquity writ large but now with influences far far away from the fall out …
Best of all is PAK has Chinese military gear and if it has show to be more advanced … whoboy … Rand will have its work cut out for it …
I posted a link to Paul Thompson’s Terror Timeline above; the section on Pakistan and the ISI is very informative on this subject. Of course unlike either Larry or Aurelian I have no direct experience to draw from. But there has been a lot of information provided on this history over the years, as Thompson shows. Steve Coll’s well-sourced books are also very useful, though they are somewhat limited hangouts given some of those sources. Far be it from me to downplay US involvement. But any suggestion that Pakistan has been just a powerless pawn in all this pretty funny. It seems clear that everyone involved in the region has been playing duplicitous games with each other, and that has certainly been true of Pakistan. Everyone has been supporting various jihadists for decades for their own purposes. And all parties have been, and are, vulnerable to blowback by the various fanatics or warlord/druglords they have enabled. My own view as an amateur outsider is that Pakistan has been playing a lot of complex and dangerous games over this period.
That said, the advantage the US has in this Great Game, as in other parts of the world, is that chaos and instability serves its purposes.
Cui bono? Who might not like the $62B USD Belt-and-Road China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and port at Gwadar?
Modi was staying in Blair House within three weeks of Trump’s inauguration. Trump’s racism is fundamental to his world-view, and his Islamophobia is well-known [despite his cravenness toward the Saudis and Gulf Arabs]. Modi’s hatred of Muslims eclipses even Trump’s. I wouldn’t put a false-flag past either of them.
The last time I heard Daniel Ellsberg speak he opined that due to their technology, India-Pakistan is the only nuclear exchange that won’t result in a nuclear winter. So there’s that.
I’ve read several studies about nuclear war, and all agree that even a ‘limited’ exchange of 100 nukes total between those countries would cause global nuclear winter that would threaten the lives of billions of people. I’m very surprised that Ellsberg would have believed differently, or perhaps he was not aware of more recent studies. See here [1] for an example.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0
I really don’t buy this thesis. It seems to be based on the notion that anything bad happening in the world must somehow be connected to nefarious neo colonial interference. The reality is that for more than 70 years neither India nor Pakistan have needed a reason to do stupid things along the disputed borderlands.
All the evidence suggests that Modi has been looking for an excuse for a long time to dump existing water sharing agreements and provoke a conflict with Pakistan – largely for domestic political and ideological reasons. Its possible that either earlier attacks in Balochistan and the Kashmir killings were false flags connected with the Indians, but its a stretch to think that the US/UK either wanted, or has the ability if it wanted, to stir things up there. It also ignores that the UK has actually quite a lot of bank investment tied up in Pakistan, including major roads to some of the supposed Belt and Road related projects. Plus, the US is openly trying to get India onside as an alternative source of trade to China.
The comments on the war being designed to disrupt trade seems devoid of any geographical knowledge. The Himalayas are an enormous barrier to movement, and they can only comfortably be by-passed far to the north. All the meaningful rail and road links from China to the west are 1000km north of Pakistan/India through the flatter open high plains north of Kashgar and connecting to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Its the same as it has been for 2000 years, the physical facts on the ground apply whether you are in a truck, train or on a camel. The old silk route connections through what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan were a tiny fraction of the main routes to the north. Even the Karakorum Highway (the main link between China and Pakistan/Afghanistan) was only finally built in the 1960’s and was then disrupted thanks to an enormous landslide. The Indians and Pakistani’s could lob nukes at each other every day and it would not disrupt those routes.
The Chinese-Pakistani links via Gwadar (CPEC) are mostly just a cover for Pakistan to do what Pakistan is very good at – leveraging loans for corrupt infrastructure projects which it will then default on. The railway connection between Pakistan and China is decades away if it ever happens (you only need to know how to read a map properly to see the reason), and the few road improvements in the area are tortuously slow in progress and won’t make much of a difference to trade – even building major highways there won’t get around the extreme difficulty of the topography and huge distances to cover to get to anywhere meaningful in China. Most of the talk (and it really is just talk) around the CPEC is just a somewhat obvious cover for China to convert Gwadar into a big free trade zone which it can (it hopes) profit from. Almost all the infrastructure works in Pakistan are based on Pakistani government loans. The only direct Chinese aid has been to Ghadwar, and that is in exchange for near total control of the Port, plus a vast tax free manufacturing zone around it (which conveniently shuts the local Baloch people out of any benefits).
Very much agree from my (relatively limited) experience in the region. I had a longer comment which may never make it out of moderation, but just to say that westerners have no idea of the way in which the Pakistanis are capable of playing both sides against the middle, and that if anyone is nefariously behind this, it’s most likely ISI, who have a lot of form. I do think it’s about time we gave up trying to deny agency to little brown people: the myth of the NW Frontier seems to be alive in the strangest places – the US, for instance.
That was my feeling as well, that I was lying to while my eyes were telling a different story when looking at the map.
While Central Asian stans are not quite like Mongolia, wedged between China and Russia, they are not that far away from that situation. Any pipedream of the US/West to truly influence the region is just that, a pipe dream. “Soft power” can work only so much…
Also, there is yet to be any corridor to be disrupted. Those that actually exist are too far away to be impacted.
There has been critique of the International North-South Trade Corridor (INSTC) that India used it to isolate Pakistan, but since (on Putin’s invitation) Pakistan’s membership process began last year, the India-Pakistan tensions do effect the operation and development of the system.
The list so far: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan. Crusades 2.0 is well underway.
War with India and Pakistan would allow the US to side with Indian Hindu Nationalism against Islam.
Let’s not forget that Steve Bannon wants to instigate a worldwide war of Christianity vs Islam, a final Crusade, and he’s the father of the Trump strategy.
Cui gaudium, vel cui doctrina bona.
Given Britain’s long history in the area and the British history of causing chaos and crisis, I think if it’s a false flag it was British inspired. Each year it feels more like the British inspired years before WW1. Not to rule out US participation.
A week before the Pahalgam attack Modi’s right hand man Amit Shah had ordered Indian security in the area to be toned down. There is an election coming up in Bihar that Modi’s party was not projected to do well in. Modi cut short his trip to Saudi Arabia and went almost immediately to Bihar. The Congress and other parties have, unlike the past, not dared to ask for proof of Pakistan’s involvement. They are all on the war bandwagon. Raising anti-Muslim feeling even higher following the attack on Muslim endowed property (the anti-waqf law) and the threat of taking over Pakistan’s water are big pluses. A possible source of the cartoonishly evil terrorists is the PKK, the Taliban-associated anti-Pakistan force of legendary cruelty, often described as CIA, Mossad and R&AW funded.