China is using Pakistan to test its military tech — and that should worry the West
In clashes earlier this month, India reportedly deployed Israeli and Western-made weapons in strikes on militant groups and Pakistani air defenses, while Pakistan retaliated with Chinese-made jets and missiles.
This provided a rare opportunity for China — which hasn't fought an open war for decades — to watch its military tech in action against Western hardware.
"Pakistan now serves as a proxy platform for Chinese military tech," Sajjan M. Gohel, international security director at the Asia-Pacific Foundation in London, told BI.
This enables Beijing to "test, refine, and demonstrate its systems without direct confrontation," he said.
Chinese weapons in Pakistani hands
The military clashes last week between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, longtime regional adversaries, were the most serious in decades.
And they played out against the backdrop of deepening rivalry between China and India, two of Asia's most powerful economies.
"It is inevitable that China is watching and learning from the India-Pakistan clashes, just as it has been from the Ukraine-Russia conflict," Gohel said.
In recent years, China has escalated its support for Pakistan, strengthening economic ties and providing Pakistan with around 80% of its weapons and military technology, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
According to reports and officials, Pakistan likely deployed Chinese-made P-15 missiles and HQ-series air defence systems against India, in addition to the Chengdu J-10C 'Vigorous Dragon' fighter jets.
Pakistan claimed it used J-10C jets to shoot down several Indian aircraft last week, including French-made Rafale jets. The claims have not been verified, but shares of Rafale manufacturer Dassault plunged as a result.
Pakistan received its first batch of J-10C jets from China in 2022.
The single-engine, multi-role aircraft is Beijing's answer to Western fighters such as the American F-16 and Sweden's Saab Gripen. It's an upgrade on the J-10, which debuted in the 2000s, and can carry a mix of precision-guided bombs, anti-ship missiles, and medium-range air-to-air weapons.
The Pakistan-India conflict is one of the first times the Chinese jet has been used in live combat.
Watching others fight
The involvement of Chinese weaponry in the recent clashes is likely of concern to the West.
Intelligence gleaned from the attacks could be used to tweak and adjust systems to make them more effective against their Western counterparts.
China "is likely to watch the conflict closely," said Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"It will see how its systems perform in real-world situations against an array of Indian systems," he said. "It will learn which countermeasures and tactics are more effective and ways to improve its systems."
Analysts told Reuters last week that China was likely using its large network of spy satellites, spy boats, and regional military bases to monitor the conflict.
In some areas, China's weapons seem to have outclassed those deployed by India.
Pakistan claims to have shot down more than two dozen Indian drones, including Israeli-made HAROP long-range drones.
India, meanwhile, claims to have taken down several Chinese-made P-15 guided missiles fired by Pakistan, suggesting some lessons that China could learn.
Global arms sales
Gohel said that China's strategy of brokering closer regional and global alliances through arms sales hinges on their performance in battlefield confrontations.
"China will want to establish several issues," Gohel said. "Can its sensors and targeting systems match or counter Western stealth and jamming? Are its missile systems achieving desired range and accuracy? How do command, control, and data-link integration fare under pressure?"
China has also long viewed Pakistan as a valuable buffer against India, with which it has clashed in recent years over their shared Himalayan border. And as US ties with India grow, China has stepped up its support for Pakistan.
"The military relationship between China and Pakistan is not transactional. It is embedded in a strategic vision," said Gohel.
Cease-fire, but nothing solved
Over the weekend, the Trump administration announced that it had brokered a cease-fire between India and Pakistan, though reports say that sporadic clashes have occurred since then.
Even so, the strategic lessons learned from the conflict could have a longer-term impact on regional security, as China and India jostle for influence, and China competes with the West in terms of military strength and hardware.
"What China learns in this conflict between India and Pakistan could feed directly into PLA training and modernization," said Gohel, referring to the Chinese People's Liberation Army, "especially with regard to India, which it views as a long-term strategic competitor."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is India committing a blunder by siding with Russia?
-- In a note this week, analysts at Bernstein questioned whether India is 'committing a blunder by siding with Russia,' warning that shifting geopolitical alignments could have 'a significant impact on the India story.' The firm stated that while the recently imposed 50% U.S. tariff on Indian goods 'is in our view the least of the country's worries,' the 'sudden shift in tone and engagement' between Washington and New Delhi is seen as more concerning. The firm stated that U.S. President Donald Trump has 'singled out India for Russian oil purchases,' prompting India to respond firmly, calling U.S. actions 'unjust and unreasonable' and openly defending its trade with Russia. Bernstein highlighted that trade talks now appear 'suspended' and that India seems 'unfazed,' even as reports circulate about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's planned visit to China and a potential visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Recalling recent optimism, Bernstein said that as recently as February, talk of doubling U.S.-India trade to $500 billion and reaching a deal by fall 2025 had cheered investors. But instead of reduced tariffs, India now faces '25% (then 50%) tariffs.' The analysts stressed that 'India's merchandise exports to U.S. are 18x that of Russia,' while Russian exports to India are 'fragmented' and largely energy-related. Oil discounts from Russia, they noted, are modest given the extra refining required, asking: 'Are these extra $2-3 really worth the diplomatic shift?' Bernstein concluded with a pointed question: 'Is it worth the risk to protect some industries while closing doors for all others to sell? Or it makes more sense to open up to a developed country, where export opportunities will always trump the incoming imports?' Related articles Is India committing a blunder by siding with Russia? Victoria's Secret Exposed: The Warning Sign Behind the Stock's 52% Collapse These Under-the-Radar Stocks Offer Better Risk-Reward Ratio Than Nvidia 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional deal with Nvidia and AMD, explained: Alexander Hamilton would approve
'We negotiated a little deal,' President Donald Trump told reporters on August 11, about the developing situation with leading chip makers Nvidia and AMD continuing to do business in China. He explained that he originally wanted a 20% cut of Nvidia's sales in exchange for the company obtaining export licenses to sell H20 chip to China, but he was persuaded to settle at 15%. The H20 chip is 'obsolete,' Trump added … 'he's selling a essentially old chip.' The chips do appear to be quite significant to China, considering that the Cyberspace Administration of China held discussions with Nvidia over security concerns that the H20 chips may be tracked and turned off remotely, according to a disclosure on its website. The deal, which lifted an export ban on Nvidia's H20 AI chips and AMD's MI308, and followed heated negotiations, was widely described as unusual and also still theoretical at this point, with the legal details still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce. Legal experts have questioned whether the eventual deal would constitute an unconstitutional export tax, as the U.S. Constitution prohibits duties on exports. This has come to be known as the 'export clause' of the constitution. Indeed, it's hard to find much precedent for it anywhere in the history of the U.S. government's dealings with the corporate sector. Erik Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has studied the history of the export clause, told Fortune he was not aware of anything like this in history. In the 1990s, he added, the Supreme Court struck down two attempted taxes on export clause grounds (cases known as IBM and U.S. Shoe). Jensen said tax practitioners were surprised that the court took up the cases: 'if only because most pay no attention to constitutional limitations, and the Court hadn't heard any export clause cases in about 70 years.' The takeaway was clear, Jensen said: 'The export clause matters.' Columbia University professor Eric Talley agreed with Jensen, telling Fortune that while the federal government has previously applied subsidies to exports, he's not aware of other historical cases imposing taxes on selected exporters. Talley also cited the export clause as the usual grounds for finding such arrangements unconstitutional. Rather than downplaying the uniqueness of the arrangement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been leaning into it. In a Bloomberg television interview, he said: 'I think you know, right now, this is unique. But now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it? I think we could see it in other industries over time.' Bessent and the White House insist there are 'no national security concerns,' since only less-advanced chips are being sold to China. Instead, officials have touted the deal as a creative solution to balance trade, technology, and national policy. How rare is this? The arrangement has drawn sharp reaction from business leaders, legal experts, and trade analysts. Julia Powles, director of UCLA's Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, told the Los Angeles Times: 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration, which is quite rare.' Experts warned that if replicated, this template could pressure other firms—not just tech giants—into similar arrangements with the government. Already, several unprecedented arrangements have been struck between the Trump administration and the corporate sector, ranging from the 'golden share' in U.S. Steel negotiated as part of its takeover by Japan's Nippon Steel to the federal government reportedly discussing buying a stake in chipmaker Intel. Nvidia and AMD have declined to comment on specifics. When contacted by Fortune for comment, Nvidia reiterated its statement that it follows rules the U.S. government sets for its participation in worldwide markets. 'While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide. America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' The White House declined to comment about the potential deal. AMD did not respond to a request for comment. While Washington has often intervened in business—especially in times of crisis—the mechanism and magnitude of the Nvidia/AMD deal are virtually unprecedented in recent history. The federal government appears to have never previously claimed a percentage of corporate revenue from export sales as a precondition for market access. Instead, previous actions took the form of temporary nationalization, regulatory control, subsidies, or bailouts—often during war or economic emergency. Examples of this include the seizure of coal mines (1946) and steel mills (1952) during labor strikes, as well as the 2008 financial crisis bailouts, where the government took equity stakes in large corporations including two of Detroit's Big three and most of Wall Street's key banks. During World War I, the War Industries Board regulated prices, production, and business conduct for the war effort. Congress has previously created export incentives and tax-deferral strategies (such as the Domestic International Sales Corporation and Foreign Sales Corporation Acts), but these measures incentivized sales rather than directly diverting a fixed share of export revenue to the government. Legal scholars stress that such arrangements were subjected to global trade rules and later modified after international complaints. Global lack of precedent The U.S. prohibition on export taxes dates back to the birth of the nation. Case Western's Jensen has written that some delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, such as New York's Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of the government being able to tax revenue sources such as imports and exports, but the 'staple states' in the southern U.S. were fiercely opposed, given their agricultural bent, especially the importance of cotton at that point. Still, many other countries currently have export taxes on the books, though they are generally imposed across all exporters, rather than as one-off arrangements that remove barriers to a specific market. And many of the nations with export taxes are developing countries who tax agricultural or resource commodities. In several cases (Uganda, Malaya, Sudan, Nigeria, Haiti, Thailand), export taxes made up 10% to 40% of total government tax revenue in the 1960s and 1970s, according to an IMF staff paper. Globally, most countries tax profits generated within their borders ('source-based corporate taxes'), but rarely as a direct percentage of export sales as a market access precondition. The standard model is taxation of locally earned profits, regardless of export destination; licensing fees and tariffs may be applied, but not usually as a fixed percent of export revenue as a pre-negotiated entry fee. Although the Nvidia/AMD deal doesn't take the usual form of a tax, Case Western's Jensen added. 'I don't see what else it could be characterized as.' It's clearly not a 'user fee,' which he said is the usual triable issue of law in export clause cases. For instance, if goods or services are being provided by the government in exchange for the charge, such as docking fees at a governmentally operated port, then that charge isn't a tax or duty and the Export Clause is irrelevant. 'I just don't see how the charges that will be levied in the chip cases could possibly be characterized in that way.' Players have been known to 'game' the different legal treatments of subsidies and taxes, Columbia's Talley added. He cited the example of a government imposing a uniform, across-the-board tax on all producers, but then providing a subsidy to sellers who sell to domestic markets. 'The net effect would be the same as a tax on exports, but indirectly.' He was unaware of this happening in the U.S. but cited several international examples including Argentina, India, and even the EU. One famous example of a canny international tax strategy was Apple's domicile in Ireland, along with so many other multinationals keeping their international profits offshore in affiliates in order to avoid paying U.S. tax, which at the time applied to all worldwide income upon repatriation. Talley said much of this went away after the 2018 tax reforms, which moved the U.S. away from a worldwide corporate tax, with some exceptions. The protection racket comparison If Trump's chip export tax is an anomaly in the annals of U.S. international trade, the deal structure has some parallels in another corner of the business world: organized crime, where 'protection rackets' have a long history. Businesses bound by such deals must pay a cut of their revenues to a criminal organization (or parallel government), effectively as the cost for being allowed to operate or to avoid harm. The China chip export tax and the protection rackets extract revenue as a condition for market access, use the threat of exclusion or punishment for non-payment, and both may be justified as 'protection' or 'guaranteed access,' but are not freely negotiated by the business. 'It certainly has the smell of a governmental shakedown in certain respects,' Columbia's Talley told Fortune, considering that the 'underlying threat was an outright export ban, which makes a 15% surcharge seem palatable by comparison.' Talley noted some nuances, such as the generally established broad statutory and constitutional support for national-security-based export bans on various goods and services sold to enumerated countries, which have been imposed with legal authority on China, North Korea, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, and others. 'From an economic perspective, a ban on an exported good is tantamount to a tax of 'infinity percent' on the good,' Talley said, meaning it effectively shuts down the export market for that good. 'Viewed in that light, a 15% levy is less (and not more) extreme than a ban.' Still, there's the matter, similar to Trump's tariff regime, of making a legal challenge to an ostensibly blatantly illegal policy actually hold up in court. 'A serious question with the chips tax,' Case Western's Jensen told Fortune, 'is who, if anyone, would have standing to challenge the tax?' In other words, it may be unconstitutional, but who's actually going to compel the federal government to obey the constitution? This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Insider
43 minutes ago
- Business Insider
‘Joyride Might Be Over,' Says Top Investor About Nvidia Stock
Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) stock has built a reputation for consistently shattering quarterly earnings projections – a fact seasoned investors know all too well. But that winning streak can be a double-edged sword, as even a solid beat doesn't always translate into immediate post-earnings gains. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. That dynamic makes Nvidia's upcoming fiscal Q2 2026 earnings on August 27 especially intriguing. Momentum is already firmly in the bulls' corner, with NVDA shares up 91% since hitting a trough in early April. Expectations remain strong, though not at the triple-digit pace NVDA has delivered in its best quarters. The average analyst estimate of $45.75 billion points to year-over-year growth of 52.31%, with margins expected to hold at an impressive 72%. On paper, such results could still tempt investors to add shares ahead of the report – even if history suggests a short-term lull is possible afterward. But not everyone is convinced. One top investor, known as Oakoff Investments, is taking a far more cautious stance. 'I don't like the setup formed in NVDA's price action as it approaches the Q2 earnings release date,' warns the 5-star investor, who is among the top 4% of TipRanks' stock pros. Oakoff's caution stems largely from concerns about Nvidia's sales to China. While previous U.S. restrictions appear to have been lifted, there are signs the Chinese government may impose its own limits. That also possibility raises the stakes for Nvidia to deliver outsized growth in other regions to sustain investor enthusiasm – a task Oakoff believes is becoming increasingly difficult. 'If the market gets a slight hint towards further deterioration on this front, the stock may sell off badly even if NVDA beats the headline numbers as strongly as it did during the past 2 years,' Oakoff opined. Valuation is another sticking point. After months of gains, Oakoff argues the rally has been fueled by multiple expansion, pushing NVDA's Forward P/E ratio to an 'unsustainable' 42.5x. The result, according to Oakoff, is a setup vulnerable to disappointment. Given these risks, the investor is leaning toward profit-taking before the earnings call. 'I maintain a Hold rating, believing NVDA stock's high valuation and the new China uncertainty outweigh the likelihood of a strong Q2 beat,' Oakoff says. (To watch Oakoff Investments' track record, click here) Wall Street, in contrast, remains almost 'all in' on NVDA. With 35 Buys, 3 Holds, and a solitary Sell rating, the stock enjoys a Strong Buy consensus rating. (See NVDA stock forecast) To find good ideas for AI stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks' Best Stocks to Buy, a tool that unites all of TipRanks' equity insights.
