Latest news with #Pakistani-backed
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Another barrier to nuclear war between India and Pakistan has fallen
India's recent military strikes inside Pakistani territory are not just another tit-for-tat reprisal in a long-standing regional dispute. They signal something far more consequential: the end of New Delhi's strategic patience and the beginning of a far riskier approach to cross-border conflict. The strikes were calibrated and limited in scope. But they were also unmistakably a gamble. India now believes it can respond militarily to Pakistani-backed attacks without triggering full-scale war. That's quite a wager. But escalation in the nuclear age is not a policy. It's a risk calculation with millions of lives on the table. The immediate trigger was a deadly ambush in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 civilians. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups. Pakistan, of course, denied involvement. But this time, India launched a military operation that struck a number of targets across the Line of Control and in Pakistani territory — sites identified by New Delhi as linked to the terrorist groups responsible. The strikes were brief but pointed, carried out with precision-guided munitions launched from India's Rafale fighter jets. This isn't unprecedented. India launched 'surgical strikes' in 2016 after the Uri attack and conducted an airstrike in Balakot in 2019 following the Pulwama bombing. But the strategic environment has shifted. The region is more brittle and great power attention is scattered. The expectations of restraint that once loosely governed Indo-Pakistani crises, always fragile, are now barely holding. Something fundamental has changed. India has set a new threshold: It will no longer absorb attacks without a kinetic response. That shift is real — and dangerous. It means the subcontinent now depends more than ever on crisis management rather than deterrence. And South Asia is ill-equipped for that. There is a hotline between the two militaries, but its use has been sporadic. There are no institutionalized arms-control frameworks, no strategic dialogue with teeth and no mutual confidence-building measures that function under pressure. For decades, nuclear deterrence in the region has relied more on shared fear than structured restraint. That may no longer be enough. The worst-case scenario for a future conflict easy to imagine. Pakistan retaliates — either through proxies or directly. India hits back again. The ladder of escalation gets steeper, faster. Political leadership on both sides becomes trapped by domestic expectations. And both militaries are trained to move quickly once hostilities begin. Then there's the nuclear question. Pakistan has always refused to adopt a 'no first use' doctrine. India maintains one in principle, but it has come under increasing rhetorical strain in recent years. The entire structure of nuclear deterrence on the subcontinent rests on ambiguity, improvisation and the hope that cooler heads will prevail in time. That's not a doctrine — it's a risk, renewed with every fresh crisis. This moment also fits a broader pattern. The use of limited, cross-border force is becoming normalized. Israel strikes Syria and Lebanon routinely. Turkey operates in northern Iraq. The U.S. continues armed drone operations from Africa to the Middle East. India, too, has now clearly decided that its security requires periodic demonstrations of resolve. But South Asia isn't like these other arenas. This is not a peripheral battlefield — it is a nuclear flashpoint. If war breaks out in earnest, it won't stay local. It would convulse the global energy market, destabilize already fragile Muslim-majority states and force the U.S. into an impossible strategic corner. China would not sit idle. Whether as a mediator or opportunist, Beijing would use the chaos to assert its influence in a region it already sees as a key frontier. A ceasefire imposed by the U.S. has stopped the conflict for now, with many in Pakistan claiming victory and celebrating the military. But the real test is whether either side understands that the illusion of controlled escalation is the most dangerous illusion of all. Once violence begins, it has its own momentum. Political leaders and military planners may think they can channel it, but history is merciless with those who mistake proximity to war for mastery of it. We should not mistake the quick end to this crisis for stability. Both sides have learned they can go further next time. And if they do, it won't take much — a single misreading, a single overreaction — for everything to unravel in a catastrophic nuclear exchange. Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Another barrier to nuclear war between India and Pakistan has fallen
India's recent military strikes inside Pakistani territory are not just another tit-for-tat reprisal in a long-standing regional dispute. They signal something far more consequential: the end of New Delhi's strategic patience and the beginning of a far riskier approach to cross-border conflict. The strikes were calibrated and limited in scope. But they were also unmistakably a gamble. India now believes it can respond militarily to Pakistani-backed attacks without triggering full-scale war. That's quite a wager. But escalation in the nuclear age is not a policy. It's a risk calculation with millions of lives on the table. The immediate trigger was a deadly ambush in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 civilians. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups. Pakistan, of course, denied involvement. But this time, India launched a military operation that struck a number of targets across the Line of Control and in Pakistani territory — sites identified by New Delhi as linked to the terrorist groups responsible. The strikes were brief but pointed, carried out with precision-guided munitions launched from India's Rafale fighter jets. This isn't unprecedented. India launched 'surgical strikes' in 2016 after the Uri attack and conducted an airstrike in Balakot in 2019 following the Pulwama bombing. But the strategic environment has shifted. The region is more brittle and great power attention is scattered. The expectations of restraint that once loosely governed Indo-Pakistani crises, always fragile, are now barely holding. Something fundamental has changed. India has set a new threshold: It will no longer absorb attacks without a kinetic response. That shift is real — and dangerous. It means the subcontinent now depends more than ever on crisis management rather than deterrence. And South Asia is ill-equipped for that. There is a hotline between the two militaries, but its use has been sporadic. There are no institutionalized arms-control frameworks, no strategic dialogue with teeth and no mutual confidence-building measures that function under pressure. For decades, nuclear deterrence in the region has relied more on shared fear than structured restraint. That may no longer be enough. The worst-case scenario for a future conflict easy to imagine. Pakistan retaliates — either through proxies or directly. India hits back again. The ladder of escalation gets steeper, faster. Political leadership on both sides becomes trapped by domestic expectations. And both militaries are trained to move quickly once hostilities begin. Then there's the nuclear question. Pakistan has always refused to adopt a 'no first use' doctrine. India maintains one in principle, but it has come under increasing rhetorical strain in recent years. The entire structure of nuclear deterrence on the subcontinent rests on ambiguity, improvisation and the hope that cooler heads will prevail in time. That's not a doctrine — it's a risk, renewed with every fresh crisis. This moment also fits a broader pattern. The use of limited, cross-border force is becoming normalized. Israel strikes Syria and Lebanon routinely. Turkey operates in northern Iraq. The U.S. continues armed drone operations from Africa to the Middle East. India, too, has now clearly decided that its security requires periodic demonstrations of resolve. But South Asia isn't like these other arenas. This is not a peripheral battlefield — it is a nuclear flashpoint. If war breaks out in earnest, it won't stay local. It would convulse the global energy market, destabilize already fragile Muslim-majority states and force the U.S. into an impossible strategic corner. China would not sit idle. Whether as a mediator or opportunist, Beijing would use the chaos to assert its influence in a region it already sees as a key frontier. A ceasefire imposed by the U.S. has stopped the conflict for now, with many in Pakistan claiming victory and celebrating the military. But the real test is whether either side understands that the illusion of controlled escalation is the most dangerous illusion of all. Once violence begins, it has its own momentum. Political leaders and military planners may think they can channel it, but history is merciless with those who mistake proximity to war for mastery of it. We should not mistake the quick end to this crisis for stability. Both sides have learned they can go further next time. And if they do, it won't take much — a single misreading, a single overreaction — for everything to unravel in a catastrophic nuclear exchange. Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
13-05-2025
- Politics
- First Post
From ‘zero tolerance' to an ‘act of war': India's war on terror gets a new definition
An uneasy calm prevails between India and Pakistan as the guns have fallen silent and the fighter aircraft are back in their bases. Based on an urgent request from Pakistan, the ceasefire, which India agreed to, came into force at 5.00 pm on May 10. It, however, became fully effective only around 10.00 pm, after Pakistani forces tried another feeble attempt at misadventure in the air in the evening, but were promptly repulsed. India has warned Pakistan against any misadventure and has put a new price on any future act of cross-border terror from Pakistan: ' An Act of War '. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While Pakistan reels under the shock of blows inflicted on it through the blitzkrieg launched by Indian armed forces over three days, it will be quite some time before it can fully count its losses and recover from it, both physically and psychologically. What has happened in the midst of all this is the fact that the cost and caution that was imposed upon Pakistan after the Balakot airstrike by India in February 2019 has been significantly raised, to a scale where it would be near suicidal for Pakistan to think of another terror attack in the future. How did it come about? All this may not have happened had a financially bankrupt and militarily shaky Pakistan not tried to do what it had mastered in the last three decades in its proxy war against India- launch a terror attack in Kashmir to divert the attention of the public in Pakistan as well as the international community towards Kashmir. Going exactly by this playbook, Pakistani-backed terrorists launched a deadly terror strike on April 22, killing 26 innocent tourists in a popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, Kashmir. The anger and outrage in the country were magnified many times over as the victims (all men) were specifically identified by their religion (Hindu), and the men were shot dead in front of their women. Pakistan had banked on three factors while launching this terror attack. First, the manner of killing (men, non-Hindu) would trigger communal clashes in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Second, the economic development and progress happening in Kashmir would come to a halt, with security once again taking over as the primary focus in Kashmir. Third, India, at best, would retaliate and carry out a Balakot-kind of strike into Pakistan. Pakistan was in for a huge shock this time. Instead of clashes, the whole nation came together. India's response began with diplomatic and economic measures, as early as April 23, the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) being held in abeyance being the biggest shock. The IWT, signed in 1960, is an instrument through which Pakistan has been able to get more than its justifiable share of water through the treaty which governs the water sharing of six rivers, Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas, that start from India and drain into the Arabian Sea through Pakistan. It had never been addressed in any of the previous wars, 1965, 1971 or the Kargil War of 1999. With the Kharif crop due to be sown from mid-May onwards, India's decision struck Pakistan where it hurts the most- its agricultural economy of Punjab. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There was unease and debates as the nation waited for revenge. The wait was not long as Indian armed forces launched 'Operation Sindoor' on May 7. The precision strikes across nine locations, all known terror infrastructure, were an absolute shock for Pakistan. The fact that the missile strikes were delivered almost simultaneously over a frontage of hundreds of kilometers stretching from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) to Bahawalpur in Punjab, and none of them were intercepted by Pakistan's air defense, added to the shock and awe. Also, the fact that four of the target locations were in Pakistan across the international border and included the Headquarters of terror groups like JeM (Bahawalpur) and LeT (Muridke) was unimaginable for the Pakistani military. Its response was hasty and it hurled swarms of drones and missiles at India which were thwarted by an effective, multilayered, and integrated air defence. Over three nights, Pakistan tried its best but achieved little. Despite India's clear indication that it had targeted only terror infrastructure on May 7 and has no intention of hurting any civilian or military infrastructure, Pakistan made valiant attempts to target civilian and military infrastructure in India, including a reported effort to target Delhi through a ballistic missile. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Exercising its right to respond and teach a befitting lesson, Indian armed forces once again did the unthinkable, targeting 11 military airfields and bases in precision strikes synchronised in time and space, severely crippling the air power capability of Pakistan on May 9. The strike at the Nur Khan air base in Rawalpindi was not only a strike at the heart of Pakistan's military but also very near to its critical nuclear weapon establishments. Having been crippled and devastated, Pakistan's DG of Military Operations was soon on the phone, requesting for a ceasefire on the afternoon of 10th May. Evolution of India's war on terror India's war against terror did not always have such punitive dimensions. Its fight against terror dates back to the early 1990s when Pakistan under its President Gen Zia-ul-Haq had launched this low-cost war option to keep India bleeding. And bleed we did, for over two decades when terror incidents inflicted injury and insult to India not only in Kashmir but also in the rest of India. While it is not possible to recount all of them in a single piece, some key ones could be discussed to understand the evolution. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The first and most important landmark has to be the incident of hijacking of Air India's flight IC-814 on 24th December 1999, just a few months after the Kargil war. In one of India's weak moments and still evolving strategy against terror, India agreed to release dreaded terrorists like Ahmed Omar Sheikh and Masood Azhar, in exchange for over 160 civilian hostages. Masood Azhar, as is well known, then went ahead and founded the terror group JeM, which has been responsible for many major terror attacks against India thereafter. The terror attack on the Indian Parliament on 13th December 2001 has to be the next major landmark. Launched by five terrorists of JeM, it led to a year-long mobilization of Indian armed forces under 'Operation Parakaram'. Still, it didn't result in any direct punishment to Pakistan for it. Contrary to it, it imposed huge economic costs on India owing to the prolonged deployment of forces as also a number of military and civilian casualties during the mobilization due to minefields and other accidents. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The 26/11 Mumbai terror attack was a milestone in many ways. It was widely considered as India's 9/11 moment and it brought global attention to India's war against terror. However, once again, it did not lead to any punishment to Pakistan or the terror group LeT, despite clear evidence of the operation being master-minded and controlled from Pakistan. In a sense therefore, till then, there was no clear policy against terror except to gather evidence, prepare folders and put forth in front of the world and Pakistan, seeking action against the perpetrators. It was the Uri terror attack on September 18, 2016, by a group of JeM terrorists on an army camp that the strategy of fight against terror actually started taking shape. Enraged by the terror attack, the Modi government in Delhi decided that enough was enough and that Pakistan as well as the terror groups need to be repaid in kind. The surgical strikes thereafter were not only a strong reply but a statement of intent. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While Uri signaled a shift in India's strategy of fight against terror, the terror attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama, Kashmir on February 14, 2019, took the fight against terror to another level. In response to the terror attack, India Air Force launched a synchronised attack on a known terror camp of JeM in Balakot on February 26. This attack broke many glass ceilings as this was the first time that the Indian Air Force had intruded into Pakistani airspace to launch a strike. This was also marked by India calling the nuclear bluff of Pakistan, which it had always threatened, trying to put caution in the Indian leadership against taking any direct action inside Pakistan. Remember Operation Parakram in 2001-02? The Pahalgam terror attack now has broken many more glass ceilings and has set a new threshold in India's war against terror. By striking key terror locations as well as key military assets deep into Pakistan, India has given a clear signal that the era of restraint and patience is over and that Pakistan will have to pay a direct and heavy price for any terror attack in the future. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By launching such a massive military operation in such a short time, India has also made it clear that any future actions will be determined by the requirements of its national security only, irrespective of how the world thinks about it and the restraint that that world seeks from India. The declaration that any future act of terror will be taken as an act of war too imposes huge costs on Pakistan, going forward. Going forward The 'Operation Sindoor' launched by the Indian armed forces is not only an act to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack but also a statement of intent. It is also a demonstration of India's military prowess and the massive gap between the military capability of India and Pakistan, where India could strike at will deep inside Pakistan, but all that Pakistan fired was intercepted by India's air defence. By targeting air bases, India has sent out a clear and loud signal; the Pakistani nuclear weapon boggy is no longer a restraining factor and that Indian forces can take out nuclear weapons sites in Pakistan too, if required. Most importantly, India has scaled up its fight against terror to a level like never before. A strategy that started with 'inaction and helplessness' almost 25 years back has now evolved into a bold strategy where the terrorists and their backers are assured of an unimaginable punishment, and there is no place for them to hide. A new, bold, and confident India is all set to bury the threat of terror effectively, forever. Col Rajeev Agarwal is a West Asia expert and a Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi. His X Handle is @rajeev1421. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hindustan Times
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Pahalgam to Rawalpindi via DC: Tale of a conflict
India has shown that it will not accept terror attacks emanating from Pakistani soil and displayed serious political intent and military capacity to counter it. Pakistan has shown that it is not a pushover although the asymmetry in power was evident, and that it possesses military and diplomatic capabilities to stand its ground. China has shown that it will leave no stone unturned to use Pakistan to weaken India. And, America has shown that despite being a distracted power with the intent to do less in the rest of the world, it remains the decisive player in the international system to shape the course of war and peace. That is the big picture that emerges out of the post-Pahalgam churn. But first here is a quick summary of how India and Pakistan got here based on the limited information in the public domain. Pakistani-backed terrorists killed civilians based on their religion in Pahalgam. India decided that wasn't acceptable and prepared for a fortnight before mounting unprecedented strikes in both Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Punjab against nine terror camps and bases. With Chinese equipment and support, Pakistan was possibly able to inflict some damage on Indian air capabilities, a fact that India hasn't yet publicly acknowledged. Pakistan then began an offensive against key Indian military bases across the western border, which India countered effectively and then responded by neutralising Lahore's air defence system. Pakistan then mounted a drone-based offensive against urban centres and military bases in India which were intercepted; India responded with drone attacks of its own on military sites in Pakistan. Pakistan continued its offensive the next day, adding missile strikes on Indian air bases. India lost patience and hit three key Pakistani Air Force bases, including the one in Rawalpindi. This led to a renewed Pakistani offensive against Indian military installations and civilian centres and the likely mobilisation of ground troops. All this while, cross-border shelling at the Line of Control (LoC) kept intensifying with an increasing loss of lives. At this point, on Saturday evening, as the world moved from being exasperated to alarmed, Donald Trump announced that US 'mediation' had led to a ceasefire deal. To be sure, this is a rough and incomplete story. The attacks and counter-attacks weren't neat and sequential but often simultaneous and multi-domain. In the next few days, all sides will attempt to cast themselves as the victor. And, over the next few weeks and months, we will know a lot more about what happened between the night of May 7 and May 10 in New Delhi, Rawalpindi and Washington DC, at the LoC and International Border, in the skies, and who gained what and lost what. But based on an admittedly incomplete sketch, here is a set of preliminary conclusions. One, India has institutionalised a new template. Uri gave an indication, Balakot provided further proof, but Operation Sindoor has established for sure that New Delhi has no political tolerance for major terror attacks on Indian soil anymore. From quick cross-border surgical strikes in 2016 and an air strike in PoK in 2019, India moved to conduct strikes in a wider geography against a larger set of targets in Pakistan. This was an impressive logistical and military feat. On Saturday, India also decided that any future terror attack would be considered an act of war. The principle of zero tolerance for terror, when translated into real policy, means that Pakistan will have to really think hard about whether it wants to incite a wider conflict with India when it sends its boys across the border to shatter the calm in Kashmir or beyond. While one can hope that better sense prevails in Rawalpindi, India will also have to prepare for the worst, boost its military capabilities, plug diplomatic weaknesses, enhance its internal security preparedness given the possibility of terror ground seeking revenge, and prepare its citizens for more frequent bouts of violence, losses and disorder. Two, Pakistan has shown that while it may be weaker, it is no pushover. Yes, the Indian GDP is eleven times more than that of Pakistan. And yes, India's government wants to build the country unlike Pakistan's army which is happy to burn their own country for the sake of propping up terror proxies and to cement domestic legitimacy or make their chief look like a superhero. But it is important to recognise that the army's dominance, its control over the budget, its historical utility to major powers and therefore ability to extract weapon systems, its dense and intimate relationship with China and Turkey, and decades of anti-India nationalist propaganda and Islamist radicalisation have given the Pakistanis a set of tools. This operates both at the level of mustering social support for prolonged conflict or escalation and at the level of having more military options. Drones have opened a new chapter of warfare. Pakistan showed an ability to strain India's air defences. The nuclear blackmail option persists even as India has now thrice successfully pushed the envelope on what's possible below the nuke threshold, effectively calling Pakistan's bluff. Pakistan's mobilisation of ground troops had created a possibility of a prolonged land-based war. And exporting terrorism remains a cheap option for a perennially irresponsible state. Make no mistake: India has overwhelming dominance in all domains, it would have won any war, and it has showed the ability to withstand Pakistan's asymmetric warfare for decades. But Pakistan's ability to cause destruction must not be discounted and was visible in this episode. Three, China was absolutely central to Pakistan's ability to defend itself. All accounts suggest that Beijing provided diplomatic support at the UN, material support for operations and possibly intelligence support to Rawalpindi. For anyone in Delhi who still harbours dreams of detente or rapprochement with Beijing, if Galwan wasn't enough, the past five days should be a reminder that India's tensions with China are deep and have a strong Pakistan dimension. China controls parts of Kashmir. China wants parts of Ladakh. China has an active military presence and upgraded infrastructure at the border. Stability at the Line of Actual Control is fragile. And on top of that, China is behind Pakistan's nuclear and conventional military capabilities. China's relationship with Russia has meant that Moscow may no longer be as solid an Indian ally even on Pakistan as in the past. China is, clearly, happy to see India, on the cusp of ripe geopolitical opportunities, dragged back into a hyphenated morass with Pakistan. All of this means that Delhi will have to live with two active and fragile fronts and be prepared for challenges on either or both any time. And, finally, the entire post-Pahalgam churn has shown the continued salience of America despite the rhetoric of disengagement and the reality of incompetence and limited personnel. Donald Trump doesn't want wars under his watch; go back to his inaugural speech where he said the one thing he would like to be is a 'peacemaker'. He is particularly obsessed with nuclear threats. And America's ability to wield both carrots and sticks with both India and Pakistan remains enormous. India may not have liked his tendency to claim credit and his use of the word 'mediation'. India may well have rejected Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claims that the ceasefire would be followed by dialogue between India and Pakistan at a neutral place. But it is clear that the US played a central role in facilitating conversations between the two sides and getting the firing to stop. The global cop is still the global cop. At the same time, there were also other players, particularly the UK, Saudi Arabia and UAE, that played a key role in weighing on Pakistan. India can take satisfaction that it displayed serious political intent to battle terror, showed it had the capability to degrade terror infrastructure, remained unified and mature in its response, and kept the big picture of its developmental objectives in mind even at a highly emotive time as it decided to end this bout of confrontation. But it must also acknowledge that the task of imposing deterrence hasn't been met fully, and it must prepare for a more volatile security situation and a neighbourhood that may just have got more fragile. Prashant Jha is a political commentator. The views expressed are personal
The Advertiser
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
India, Pakistan clash as US VP says 'not our business'
Vice President JD Vance says India and Pakistan should de-escalate tensions, but added the United States cannot control the nuclear-armed Asian neighbours and a war between them would be "none of our business". "We want this thing to de-escalate as quickly as possible. We can't control these countries, though," Vance said in an interview on Fox News show The Story with Martha MacCallum on Thursday. "What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we're not going to get involved in the middle of war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it." Pakistan armed forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along India's entire western border on the intervening night of Thursday and Friday, the Indian Army said in a post on X on Friday. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed, the army said Blasts rang out across the city of Jammu in Indian Kashmir on Thursday during what Indian military sources said they suspect was a Pakistani drone attack across the region on the second day of clashes between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Sirens sounded and red flashes and projectiles could be seen in the night sky above the city, a Reuters journalist said. Several parts of Jammu and the surrounding towns of Akhnoor, Samba and Kathua came under attack, said an Indian official who asked not to be named. There was no immediate comment from Pakistan on what appeared to be an escalation in the countries' worst confrontation in more than two decades. Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, had earlier said further retaliation was "increasingly certain" after both countries accused each other of launching drone attacks. India said it hit nine "terrorist infrastructure" sites in Pakistan on Wednesday in retaliation for what it says was a deadly Pakistani-backed attack in Indian Kashmir on April 22. Pakistan says it was not involved and denied that any of the sites hit by India were militant bases. It said it shot down five Indian aircraft on Wednesday, a report the Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed as "misinformation". Pakistan said earlier on Thursday it shot down 25 drones from India overnight while India said it air defences had stopped Pakistani drone and missile attacks on military targets. World powers from the US to Russia and China have called for calm in one of the world's most dangerous, and most populated, nuclear flashpoint regions. The US consulate general in Pakistan's Lahore ordered staff to shelter in place. Vice President JD Vance says India and Pakistan should de-escalate tensions, but added the United States cannot control the nuclear-armed Asian neighbours and a war between them would be "none of our business". "We want this thing to de-escalate as quickly as possible. We can't control these countries, though," Vance said in an interview on Fox News show The Story with Martha MacCallum on Thursday. "What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we're not going to get involved in the middle of war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it." Pakistan armed forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along India's entire western border on the intervening night of Thursday and Friday, the Indian Army said in a post on X on Friday. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed, the army said Blasts rang out across the city of Jammu in Indian Kashmir on Thursday during what Indian military sources said they suspect was a Pakistani drone attack across the region on the second day of clashes between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Sirens sounded and red flashes and projectiles could be seen in the night sky above the city, a Reuters journalist said. Several parts of Jammu and the surrounding towns of Akhnoor, Samba and Kathua came under attack, said an Indian official who asked not to be named. There was no immediate comment from Pakistan on what appeared to be an escalation in the countries' worst confrontation in more than two decades. Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, had earlier said further retaliation was "increasingly certain" after both countries accused each other of launching drone attacks. India said it hit nine "terrorist infrastructure" sites in Pakistan on Wednesday in retaliation for what it says was a deadly Pakistani-backed attack in Indian Kashmir on April 22. Pakistan says it was not involved and denied that any of the sites hit by India were militant bases. It said it shot down five Indian aircraft on Wednesday, a report the Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed as "misinformation". Pakistan said earlier on Thursday it shot down 25 drones from India overnight while India said it air defences had stopped Pakistani drone and missile attacks on military targets. World powers from the US to Russia and China have called for calm in one of the world's most dangerous, and most populated, nuclear flashpoint regions. The US consulate general in Pakistan's Lahore ordered staff to shelter in place. Vice President JD Vance says India and Pakistan should de-escalate tensions, but added the United States cannot control the nuclear-armed Asian neighbours and a war between them would be "none of our business". "We want this thing to de-escalate as quickly as possible. We can't control these countries, though," Vance said in an interview on Fox News show The Story with Martha MacCallum on Thursday. "What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we're not going to get involved in the middle of war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it." Pakistan armed forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along India's entire western border on the intervening night of Thursday and Friday, the Indian Army said in a post on X on Friday. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed, the army said Blasts rang out across the city of Jammu in Indian Kashmir on Thursday during what Indian military sources said they suspect was a Pakistani drone attack across the region on the second day of clashes between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Sirens sounded and red flashes and projectiles could be seen in the night sky above the city, a Reuters journalist said. Several parts of Jammu and the surrounding towns of Akhnoor, Samba and Kathua came under attack, said an Indian official who asked not to be named. There was no immediate comment from Pakistan on what appeared to be an escalation in the countries' worst confrontation in more than two decades. Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, had earlier said further retaliation was "increasingly certain" after both countries accused each other of launching drone attacks. India said it hit nine "terrorist infrastructure" sites in Pakistan on Wednesday in retaliation for what it says was a deadly Pakistani-backed attack in Indian Kashmir on April 22. Pakistan says it was not involved and denied that any of the sites hit by India were militant bases. It said it shot down five Indian aircraft on Wednesday, a report the Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed as "misinformation". Pakistan said earlier on Thursday it shot down 25 drones from India overnight while India said it air defences had stopped Pakistani drone and missile attacks on military targets. World powers from the US to Russia and China have called for calm in one of the world's most dangerous, and most populated, nuclear flashpoint regions. The US consulate general in Pakistan's Lahore ordered staff to shelter in place. Vice President JD Vance says India and Pakistan should de-escalate tensions, but added the United States cannot control the nuclear-armed Asian neighbours and a war between them would be "none of our business". "We want this thing to de-escalate as quickly as possible. We can't control these countries, though," Vance said in an interview on Fox News show The Story with Martha MacCallum on Thursday. "What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we're not going to get involved in the middle of war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it." Pakistan armed forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along India's entire western border on the intervening night of Thursday and Friday, the Indian Army said in a post on X on Friday. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed, the army said Blasts rang out across the city of Jammu in Indian Kashmir on Thursday during what Indian military sources said they suspect was a Pakistani drone attack across the region on the second day of clashes between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Sirens sounded and red flashes and projectiles could be seen in the night sky above the city, a Reuters journalist said. Several parts of Jammu and the surrounding towns of Akhnoor, Samba and Kathua came under attack, said an Indian official who asked not to be named. There was no immediate comment from Pakistan on what appeared to be an escalation in the countries' worst confrontation in more than two decades. Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, had earlier said further retaliation was "increasingly certain" after both countries accused each other of launching drone attacks. India said it hit nine "terrorist infrastructure" sites in Pakistan on Wednesday in retaliation for what it says was a deadly Pakistani-backed attack in Indian Kashmir on April 22. Pakistan says it was not involved and denied that any of the sites hit by India were militant bases. It said it shot down five Indian aircraft on Wednesday, a report the Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed as "misinformation". Pakistan said earlier on Thursday it shot down 25 drones from India overnight while India said it air defences had stopped Pakistani drone and missile attacks on military targets. World powers from the US to Russia and China have called for calm in one of the world's most dangerous, and most populated, nuclear flashpoint regions. The US consulate general in Pakistan's Lahore ordered staff to shelter in place.
