Latest news with #Tellis
The Star
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Star
India-Pakistan: conflict with no clear winner
PARIS: A ceasefire between India and Pakistan has calmed fears of all-out war and despite conflicting claims, experts say no clear victor emerged in the brief conflict between the nuclear-armed foes. - No clear winner - Both South Asian countries claim to have achieved their goals in their worst conflict since 1999, without admitting significant losses. Four days of intense fighting began last Wednesday (May 7) when India launched strikes against what it described as "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan. India claims Pakistan backs the militants it says were behind an April attack in which 26 people were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir -- a charge Islamabad denies. "If victory is defined by who lost the most manned aircraft, then India certainly lost this one," said Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie think tank. "But India also succeeded in effectively interdicting a range of Pakistani surface targets and imposing significant costs on Pakistan," Tellis told AFP. "Both sides continue to claim air-to-air kills, but clear evidence remains unavailable at the time of writing," said Fabian Hoffmann from the University of Oslo. "What stands out is the extensive use of conventional long-range strike systems by both sides to target military infrastructure deep within enemy territory, including sites near their capitals," he added. - Nuclear powers - While slow to begin with, the international community, including the United States, eventually intervened, alarmed by the possibility of further escalation. Hoffmann said the bitter foes showed little restraint despite the absence of "deliberate strikes on critical civilian infrastructure". "Any shift in that direction would... potentially bring the conflict closer to the threshold of nuclear use," said Hoffmann. The global trend towards violence, especially by states facing internal turmoil, demands greater international vigilance, according to Tellis. The fact that both countries are nuclear powers "makes the conventional balances all the more important. But the fact remains that neither side has a decisive conventional edge in a short war," said Tellis. - Drones on the frontline - Like other modern conflicts, this one confirmed the "widespread" use of drones for warfare, according to Oishee Majumdar from British intelligence firm Janes. Israel Aerospace Industries' exploding drones Harop and Harpy, as well as reconnaissance drone Heron were used by India, Majumdar told AFP. According to specialist site Military Balance, India also deployed Indian drones Nishant and Drishti. Indian media said New Delhi also used French SCALP and Indian BrahMos cruise missiles, and AASM Hammer bombs developed by France's Safran. The Pakistani army used Songar drones developed by Turkey's Asisguard, according to Janes. Military Balance said Islamabad was also armed with Chinese combat and reconnaissance drones -- CH-3 and CH-4, Wing Loong -- and Turkey's Akinci and TB2 drones. - Chinese neutrality? - At the start of the conflict, China urged restraint from both sides and promised to play a "constructive role". But experts say Beijing has clearly picked a side. China said it considered Pakistan an "ironclad friend" and that it "understands Pakistan's legitimate security concerns", said Chietigj Bajpaee from think tank Chatham House. Bajpaee also said that "over 80 percent of Pakistan's arms imports over the last five years have come from China". "Beijing supplies Islamabad with key systems" including the HQ-9/P surface-to-air missile system, the LY-80 medium-range air defence and FM-90 defence systems, said John Spencer, an ex-US army officer and researcher at the Modern War Institute. But Islamabad's "reliance on Chinese exports has created a brittle illusion of strength", said Spencer, adding that the systems are "designed to provide layered protection" but "failed" against India's strikes last week. - Rafale jet claims - Pakistan claims to have shot down five Indian fighter jets, including three advanced French Rafale aircraft, all of which were in Indian airspace at the time. India has not disclosed any losses. Rafale maker Dassault did not comment. According to a European military source, it is "very unlikely" that three Rafales were destroyed, but "credible" that at least one was. Analysts suggest that Indian aircraft were shot down by a Chinese air-to-air missile, the PL-15E, with a range of 145 kilometres (90 miles) in the version acquired by Islamabad, and whose debris was found in Indian territory. "India lost at least one Rafale to a Pakistani J-10C firing a PL-15 air-to-air missile in an ultra-long-range air engagement," said Carnegie's Tellis. This type of missile can target a position while remaining undetected "until its own radar is activated a few dozen kilometres away, or a few seconds" from its target, according to a French fighter pilot interviewed by AFP. "You can't escape it". - AFP
New Indian Express
14-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
India-Pakistan: Conflict with no clear winner
Paris, France: A ceasefire between India and Pakistan has calmed fears of all-out war and despite conflicting claims, experts say no clear victor emerged in the brief conflict between the nuclear-armed foes. No clear winner Both South Asian countries claim to have achieved their goals in their worst conflict since 1999, without admitting significant losses. Four days of intense fighting began last Wednesday when India launched strikes against what it described as "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan. India claims Pakistan backs the militants it says were behind an April attack in which 26 people were killed in Kashmir -- a charge Islamabad denies. "If victory is defined by who lost the most manned aircraft, then India certainly lost this one," said Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie think tank. "But India also succeeded in effectively interdicting a range of Pakistani surface targets and imposing significant costs on Pakistan," Tellis told AFP. "Both sides continue to claim air-to-air kills, but clear evidence remains unavailable at the time of writing," said Fabian Hoffmann from the University of Oslo. "What stands out is the extensive use of conventional long-range strike systems by both sides to target military infrastructure deep within enemy territory, including sites near their capitals," he added. Nuclear powers While slow to begin with, the international community, including the United States, eventually intervened, alarmed by the possibility of further escalation. Hoffmann said the bitter foes showed little restraint despite the absence of "deliberate strikes on critical civilian infrastructure". "Any shift in that direction would... potentially bring the conflict closer to the threshold of nuclear use," said Hoffmann. The global trend towards violence, especially by states facing internal turmoil, demands greater international vigilance, according to Tellis. The fact that both countries are nuclear powers "makes the conventional balances all the more important. But the fact remains that neither side has a decisive conventional edge in a short war," said Tellis. Drones on the frontline Like other modern conflicts, this one confirmed the "widespread" use of drones for warfare, according to Oishee Majumdar from British intelligence firm Janes. Israel Aerospace Industries' exploding drones Harop and Harpy, as well as reconnaissance drone Heron were used by India, Majumdar told AFP. According to specialist site Military Balance, India also deployed Indian drones Nishant and Drishti.
Zawya
14-04-2025
- Business
- Zawya
US-India tech ties must be driven by market forces, not just state support: Ashley J. Tellis at Carnegie Summit
New Delhi : Ashley J. Tellis, Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, offered a candid analysis of the evolving US approach to global technology partnerships under a potential second Trump administration and the broader implications for the US-India relationship, at the Carnegie Global Tech Summit held in New Delhi on Friday. On the US-India technology partnership, Tellis argued that while state-led initiatives and subsidies are useful to jumpstart cooperation, they are not a viable long-term model. He stated, "I do not believe that a sustainable path for the US-India Relationship is through state action and state subsidies. Those are very good to jump-start the process, but if we have to keep it sustainable, we need to really have market transformations in both countries that essentially permit innovation to respond to the pressures of the market." Tellis pointed out a shift in US policy priorities, stating, "I think the bias in the Trump administration is to sell services. And given that bias, it is very likely that there will be much greater technology acquisition opportunities over here and for the rest of the world. Now, what it does to a certain conception of global order is a very different question." However, he cautioned that such a transactional approach could undermine long-standing frameworks designed to preserve the global order. He said, "For 70 years now, we tried to help our friends while at the same time maintaining a proliferation regime that would date to a certain conception of order. Now, if we end up in a situation where the price of helping our friends is to engulf the regime simultaneously, I'm not quite sure long-term US interests are at hand, nor am I sure that the interests of our friends are at hand. What is even worse is that I'm not sure the administration has the discipline to understand the issues at hand." Tellis expressed concern over whether future U.S. administrations would have the strategic discipline to manage these complexities. "Time will tell whether, net-net, we come out ahead," he said. © Muscat Media Group Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Times of Oman
12-04-2025
- Business
- Times of Oman
US-India tech ties must be driven by market forces, not just state support: Ashley J. Tellis at Carnegie Summit
New Delhi : Ashley J. Tellis, Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, offered a candid analysis of the evolving US approach to global technology partnerships under a potential second Trump administration and the broader implications for the US-India relationship, at the Carnegie Global Tech Summit held in New Delhi on Friday. On the US-India technology partnership, Tellis argued that while state-led initiatives and subsidies are useful to jumpstart cooperation, they are not a viable long-term model. He stated, "I do not believe that a sustainable path for the US-India Relationship is through state action and state subsidies. Those are very good to jump-start the process, but if we have to keep it sustainable, we need to really have market transformations in both countries that essentially permit innovation to respond to the pressures of the market." Tellis pointed out a shift in US policy priorities, stating, "I think the bias in the Trump administration is to sell services. And given that bias, it is very likely that there will be much greater technology acquisition opportunities over here and for the rest of the world. Now, what it does to a certain conception of global order is a very different question." However, he cautioned that such a transactional approach could undermine long-standing frameworks designed to preserve the global order. He said, "For 70 years now, we tried to help our friends while at the same time maintaining a proliferation regime that would date to a certain conception of order. Now, if we end up in a situation where the price of helping our friends is to engulf the regime simultaneously, I'm not quite sure long-term US interests are at hand, nor am I sure that the interests of our friends are at hand. What is even worse is that I'm not sure the administration has the discipline to understand the issues at hand." Tellis expressed concern over whether future U.S. administrations would have the strategic discipline to manage these complexities. "Time will tell whether, net-net, we come out ahead," he said.
