‘Tremendous pressure to retaliate': Senior defence analysts predict severe escalation in fighting between India and Pakistan as border skirmishes rage on
Top defence experts Michael Shoebridge and Malcolm Davis have said Islamabad would be under 'tremendous pressure to retaliate' after India launched a barrage of coordinated strikes against Pakistan, as the risk of open war between the nuclear-armed states continues to rise.
The Indian government confirmed it had launched multiple missile strikes against its south Asian neighbour on Wednesday, with the death toll rising to 31 overnight according to a Pakistani military spokesperson.
The strikes came days after India blamed Pakistan for a deadly terrorist attack on the Indian side of the contested Kashmir region that killed 26 people.
The Indian government said in a statement it had hit nine non-military targets across Pakistan, in what it called 'Operation Sindoor', and that its actions had been 'focussed, measured and non-escalatory in nature'.
Both countries also exchanged intense shelling and heavy gunfire across significant portions of their de facto border in the Himalayan region of Kashmir, with Pakistan claiming it had shot down five Indian air force jets.
Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the situation had the potential to severely escalate and warned the Pakistani government would be 'under tremendous pressure to retaliate'.
"I think that any time you have a situation like this where India has retaliated for a terrorist attack that seems to have had some sort of Pakistani involvement, you have the potential for an escalatory cycle' Mr Davis said.
'In other words, India has attacked Pakistan today in terms of hitting those terrorist sites in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, as well as Pakistan itself.
'Therefore, I think you could see that retaliation happening in the next 24, 36 hours and then India would then be under pressure to respond somehow.'
Michael Shoebridge, a former senior defence official and the founder and director of Strategic Analysis Australia, also said escalation between the two states had not finished and that the real danger would come after Pakistan launched their retaliatory response.
'The line of control has got artillery exchanges happening. That's not the most dangerous thing. The most dangerous is what happens next after these Indian airstrikes' he said.
'If Pakistan has actually shot down Indian aircraft, the Indians will want to escalate and respond to that. If the Indians have shot down Pakistani aircraft, well, the Pakistanis won't want to leave it there.'
Mr Shoebridge also addressed India's accusations of Pakistani involvement in a terrorist attack that struck Indian controlled portions of Kashmir last week, including claims Islamic militants were being sheltered in Pakistan.
'There's a history of that being true where Pakistan has had terrorists operating out of its territory. But in this case, the Indians have said they've got evidence, but they haven't actually provided it,' he said.
The defence expert added if India was to effectively harness international support, then it would 'need to be open about what evidence they have'.
At 3pm Wednesday, local time, a statement from the Pakistani Prime Minister's office confirmed armed forces had been authorised to undertake 'corresponding actions' against India.
Mr Davis detailed the possible nature and scope of the Pakistani retaliatory strike and urged both parties to refrain from using overt displays of force.
'When you look at how Pakistan sees its defence doctrine it doesn't have the ability really to defend Pakistani territory in depth and that's why it's tended to rely heavily on tactical nuclear weapons for defending Pakistan,' he said.
'We are talking about the prospect of tit-for-tat retaliation between both sides that could generate increasing tension. So, it is a serious situation and I would hope that both India and Pakistan take a step back from the brink.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
17 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Undefended': Defence expert Malcolm Davis' shock claim about key Australian bases, critical infrasturcture
A leading security analyst has made the shock claim many of Australia's key military bases and critical infrastructure is essentially "undefended". Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, warned the government risked leaving the nation exposed in the even of a conflict unless defence spending was rapidly raised to cover capability gaps. The Albanese government has come under increasing pressure to address shortfalls in the Australian Defence Force, including from the United States government. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth used a meeting with Defence Minister Richard Marles to demand the government raise outlay to at least 2.5 per cent of GDP, while other experts have pressed Labor to go as high as 3.5 per cent given the increasing risk of regional conflict. Speaking to Sky New Australia, Mr Davis noted China was expected to invade Taiwan within the coming decade, a move which would likely place the ADF in the firing line and necessitate robust defences in the country's north. The ASPI analyst claimed such defences were severely lacking at present, suggesting some of Australia's most vital assets were badly exposed. "Right at the moment, all our critical infrastructure in the north of Australia is essentially undefended," he said. "The government talks about building integrated air and missile defence systems, and they have developed the command and control system for that, but they don't have any missiles to shoot with. "They talk about possibly using a naval-based missile or an air-based missile, but those platforms have to be in the right place at the right time. "So the reality is that all that critical infrastructure of the north or the air bases such as RAAF Tindal, ports and other oil facilities and energy facilities are all undefended." In light of the "very clear threat" posed by China, Mr Davis urged the government to dramatically ramp up spending on defence in order to ensure the nation remains secure. "We need to go to a floor of 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence spending as soon as possible and that means not in 10 years, it means in a year or two," he said. Under Labor's current plan, spending on defence will not reach 2.5 per cent of GDP until some time after 2033 and there is no clear timeline to increase investment to three per cent or beyond. While Mr Davis acknowledged increased spending could not just "be money thrown at the Department of Defence", he argued smart investment into long-term resilience was vital. "That defence spend needs to increase our resilience against attack, that includes integrated air and missile defence systems," he said. "It needs to include sustainability and building sustainability for protracted war that could last months or years in our region and ensure that we can stay in the fight, a high intensity fight, for that period of time."
The Age
2 days ago
- The Age
‘Progressive patriot' prime minister faces his call to arms
'In today's Australia, the new default should be that patriotism is a love of country that is democratic and egalitarian. It is something that includes those of different races and backgrounds,' he wrote in this masthead a couple of weeks ago. 'With his political authority unquestioned, Albanese has an opportunity to craft a nation-building agenda. The significance is more than just national. At the moment, parties of the centre-left are struggling to find compelling alternatives to Trumpist populism.' Albanese's defiance of America doesn't come out of nowhere. It rings a Labor bell. It resonates with the decision by Labor's celebrated wartime leader, John Curtin, to defy Australia's great and powerful friend of his time, Britain. 'I'm conscious about the leadership of John Curtin, choosing to stand up to Winston Churchill and say, 'No, I'm bringing the Australian troops home to defend our own continent, we're not going to just let it go',' Albanese said last year as he prepared to walk the Kokoda Track, where Australia and Papua New Guinea halted Imperial Japan's southward march of conquest in World War II. Defiance of allies is one thing. Defeat of the enemy is another. In a moment of truth-telling, the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral David Johnston, this week said that Australia now had to plan to wage war from its own continental territory rather than preparing for war in far-off locations. 'We are having to reconsider Australia as a homeland from which we will conduct combat operations,' Johnston told a conference held by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'That is a very different way – almost since the Second World War – of how we think of national resilience and preparedness. We may need to operate and conduct combat operations from this country.' He didn't spell it out, but he's evidently contemplating the possibility that China will cut off Australia's seaborne supply routes, either because it's waging war in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea, or because it's seeking to coerce Australia. 'The chief of the defence force is speaking truth,' says Professor Peter Dean, co-author of the government's Defence Strategic Review, now at the US Studies Centre at Sydney University. 'There's a line in the Defence Strategic Review that most people overlook – it talks about 'the defence of Australia against potential threats arising from major power competition, including the prospect of conflict'. And there's only one major power posing a threat in our region.' History accelerates week by week. Trump, chaos factory, wantonly discards America's unique sources of power and abuses its allies. China's Xi Jinping and Russia's Vladimir Putin are emboldened, seeing America's credibility crumbling. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, alarmed at the rising risks, this week declared a campaign to make Britain 'battle ready' to 'face down Russian aggression'. Loading Starmer plans to enlarge the army, commission up to a dozen new nuclear-powered submarines jointly built with Australia under AUKUS, build six new munitions factories, manufacture 7000 long-range weapons, renew the nuclear warheads on Britain's strategic missiles, and put new emphasis on drones and cyberwar as war evolves daily on the battlefields of Ukraine. Starmer intends to increase defence outlays to the equivalent of 2.5 per cent of GDP with an eventual target of 3 per cent. Ukraine's impressive drone strike on Russia's bombers this week knocked out a third of Moscow's force, with AI guiding the drones to their targets. The Australian retired major-general Mick Ryan observes that Ukraine and Russia are upgrading and adapting drone warfare weekly. 'The Australian government has worked hard to ignore these hard-earned lessons and these cheaper military solutions,' he wrote scathingly in this masthead this week, 'while building a dense bureaucracy in Canberra that innovative drone-makers in Australia cannot penetrate in any reasonable amount of time.' At the same time, the FBI charged two Chinese researchers with attempting to smuggle a toxic fungus into the US. It's banned because it can cause mass destruction of crops. A potential bioweapon, in other words. What would John Curtin do today? 'Curtin, like Albanese, was from the left of the Labor Party,' says Dean. 'He was not an internationalist, he was very domestic focused.' Indeed, he was an avowed Marxist who believed that capitalism was in its late phase and bound to fail, leading to world peace. He abandoned his idealism when confronted by the reality of World War II. 'He realised that a leader has to lead for his times. He had to bend his interests from the domestic sphere to the international.' Curtin famously wrote that, after Britain's 'impregnable fortress' of Singapore fell to the Japanese in just a few days, Australia looked to America as its great and powerful friend. 'Albanese can't repeat that,' observes Dean, 'because there's no one else to turn to.' 'A modern John Curtin,' says the head of the National Security College at ANU, Rory Medcalf, 'would take account of the strategic risk facing the unique multicultural democratic experiment of Australia. He'd unite the community and bring the trade unions, industry, the states and territories together in a national effort. 'It's certainly not about beating the drums of war, but we do need a much more open conversation about national preparedness. Australia might be directly involved in war, but, even if we aren't, we will be affected indirectly [by war to our north] because of risks to our fuel security, risks to the normal functioning of the economy and risks to the cohesion of our society. Is there scope to use national cabinet' – which includes the states and territories – 'to talk about these issues?' And the defence budget? Albanese is dismissive of calls to peg spending by set percentages of GDP. Apply that to any other area of the budget and you'd be laughed out of the room. The prime minister prefers to decide on capability that's needed, then to fund it accordingly. How big a gun do you need, then find money to pay for it. Medcalf endorses this approach of deciding capability before funding, but says that risk should come before both. 'And if you look at risk first, it will push spending well above 2 per cent of GDP and much closer to 3 or 4 per cent.' Regardless of what the Americans say or do. Do they turn out to be dependable but demanding? Or uselessly absent? 'Australia will need to spend more either way,' says Medcalf. 'The only future where we don't need to increase our security investment is one where we accept greatly reduced sovereignty in a China-dominated region.'
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Sky News AU
China has its own ‘strategic agenda' when it comes to their trade war with the US
ASPI Senior Analyst in Defence Strategy Malcolm Davis claims the phone call between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping has 'not at all' cooled tensions between the leaders amid their tariff war. 'No matter what the Trump administration says to China … China has its own strategic agenda,' Mr Davis told Sky News Australia. 'Trump very well may go to Beijing ... but at the end of the day, Chinese are still going to make their moves in the Indo-Pacific.'
