Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

[Oscar]

At first yes a poor response. The army needs to fix up. The large response came near the start of the ceasefire. The PAF was left open to such attacks.

Keep in mind that Trump narrated an interesting exchange between him and Modi - on how he was pretty bellicose on a call and wanting to continue fighting.

At the end the military leadership in Pakistan is well aware that plain mathematics doesn’t favor an escalation and that it will lose more if India ups the ante. They want to keep it confined to a limited air war - if India commits to a full unleashed war machine regardless of fighting spirit or otherwise the 20% competent of Pakistani military are still not enough to hold off the 10% competent of theirs.

 

[Oscar]

Whatever may be the claims or counter claims, jinnahs reckless gamble has locked pakistan in a mortal struggle with a 7 times larger neighbour and has unfortunately paved the way for its downfall.

Potentially, but since nuclear weapons exist even the minute possibility that someone in Pakistan’s otherwise dithering leadership uses them means the 7 times larger neighbor also had 7 or more times people,resources and wealth to lose.

Which is why regardless of claims of ABMs and so on - the second nuclear weapons are mentioned on phone calls the 56inch chests do start deflating.

Then even wannabe Israelis(European racists who would spit on your face) who keep repeating like a tape recorder and moving goal posts like the wannabe Israelis they are - become nothing more than background noise.

 

[Baibers_1260]

Douglas Gracey was born in

At the end the military leadership in Pakistan is well aware that plain mathematics doesn’t favor an escalation and that it will lose more if India ups the ante.

Agree in part . The caveat here is that the escalation is not controlled by Pakistan at all, but by India.
So India knows that the mathematics is in its favor and Pakistan stands to lose more in a protracted conflict . So India has every incentive to "up the ante " and launch a protracted conflict.
Regardless of what the Pakistani armed forces want, they don't control the pace of the war, and can only react rather retaliate as best as they can.
How much India will tolerate the retaliation in a future conflict is a topic for another discussion. The May 2025 conflict showed that India was unpleasantly surprised and decided to call it a day,
I agree that the May 2025 scenario will never be repeated in a future conflict.

 

[Unknown987]

India waiting for Pakistan military to invade Afghanistan they will than make a rapid thrust towards Sind and Kashmir possibly gaining territory.Pakistan’s internal politics will be the main cause of internal destruction.

 

[Baibers_1260]

Keep in mind that Trump narrated an interesting exchange between him and Modi - on how he was pretty bellicose on a call and wanting to continue fighting.

In part the Indian stance is correct. It wasn't entirely the pressure from the USA that ended the fighting between India and Pakistan in May 2025. This was after India struck and damaged 9 airbases inside Pakistan. The reason India threw in the towel was the clobbering it was getting from thousands of artillery shells, mortar, rocket and ATGMs on the border posts at the LOC, and all the way down south along the international border till Bhuj in Gujarat. There was no way to intercept artillery shells, and a counter-battery fire ( from surviving units after the initial onslaught) only results in mutual attrition which was bad optics for India. The option was to "up-the-ante " and go for a full blown war but in the absence of clear air superiority this appeared risky, A ceasefire and narrative management seemed a much more attractive option.
Mystery that remains:
- On May 8th, why didn't the Indian Air Force strike at Pakistani gun positions and border outposts all along the LOC and IB ? Silencing the guns would have saved dozens (or hundreds) of BSF and IA lives.

Would be interested to know if other members here have answers to the question above.

 

[Master Chief]

India waiting for Pakistan military to invade Afghanistan they will than make a rapid thrust towards Sind and Kashmir possibly gaining territory.Pakistan’s internal politics will be the main cause of internal destruction.

I think....you're probably right.

Pakistan must not fall into the trap.

Get USA to start shooting the Kabulites. Am not joking! They left all their equipment in Afg and they should deal with it as it is that equipment being used against our civilians. USA are heavily responsible for the Talib's perpetual state of belligerence though their sheer cock and bull logistical incompetence.

 

[Baibers_1260]

India waiting for Pakistan military to invade Afghanistan they will than make a rapid thrust towards Sind and Kashmir possibly gaining territory.Pakistan’s internal politics will be the main cause of internal destruction.

Why would the Pakistan military invade Afghanistan?
Pakistan has punished Afghanistan severely already for supporting terror and for now at least these terror attacks seem to have lessened.
If Pakistan loses Sindh or Kashmir it will cease to exist as a nation. It is unlikely that our armed forces will allow the entire nation to be occupied and our people enslaved. A nuclear martyrdom is a far more attractive option.

 

[Oscar]

In part the Indian stance is correct. It wasn't entirely the pressure from the USA that ended the fighting between India and Pakistan in May 2025. This was after India struck and damaged 9 airbases inside Pakistan. The reason India threw in the towel was the clobbering it was getting from thousands of artillery shells, mortar, rocket and ATGMs on the border posts at the LOC, and all the way down south along the international border till Bhuj in Gujarat. There was no way to intercept artillery shells, and a counter-battery fire ( from surviving units after the initial onslaught) only results in mutual attrition which was bad optics for India. The option was to "up-the-ante " and go for a full blown war but in the absence of clear air superiority this appeared risky, A ceasefire and narrative management seemed a much more attractive option.
Mystery that remains:
- On May 8th, why didn't the Indian Air Force strike at Pakistani gun positions and border outposts all along the LOC and IB ? Silencing the guns would have saved dozens (or hundreds) of BSF and IA lives.

Would be interested to know if other members here have answers to the question above.

I dont believe this rather nationalistic narrative but Modi was being advised to unleash the full hounds from hawks that are majority in the government but more moderate voices were cautioning that for the military to get its act together will take time and incur more losses even after generally blasé counterstrikes by Pakistan until they could actually make an impact.
More importantly, there was real danger through signaling from Pakistan to common "friends" that if India did not back down Pakistan would target Indian critical infrastructure like refineries and so on that would cause much more in terms of monetary losses to Pakistan.
It was plain "We have much more to lose" even if they did more damage to Pakistan the value of what Pakistan has pales in comparison to the billions India has to lose - not just in the loss of the assets themselves but also future value of those assets.

 

[Baibers_1260]

but Modi was being advised to unleash the full hounds from hawks that are majority in the government but more moderate voices were cautioning that for the military to get its act together will take time and incur more losses even after generally blasé counterstrikes by Pakistan until they could actually make an impact.

Which moderate voices? On any war with Pakistan Modi has unanimous support, not only from his own cabinet, party, elected lawmakers, and defence personnel but also from the opposition. There was not a single dissenting voice from any quarter on the conduct of the war while it was being waged. The denunciation of the ceasefire by the chief opposition, the Congress party came later. Every single political entity in India favored continuation of the war till "victory" , and final destruction of Pakistan. Nationalist government backed TV channels howled in disappointment when the ceasefire was announced because "Lahore had just been captured " and "Karachi was another Gaza. ".
"Incur more losses".. Which losses exactly? Whatever losses India had incurred had already happened on May 6-May 7, There were no aircraft lost after May 7th If losing 7 planes are losses then war strategy must be redefined to the Russians that lost 8 aircraft to Ukrainian S-300 air defenses in a single day in 2022 trying to establish air superiority over Kiev,

make an impact.
More importantly, there was real danger through signaling from Pakistan to common "friends" that if India did not back down Pakistan would target Indian critical infrastructure like refineries and so on that would cause much more in terms of monetary losses to Pakistan.

How could Pakistan target India's critical infrastructure when it couldn't even target India's air defenses or bases. The best Pakistan could do was launch Fatah 1 rockets from MRLS . According to India every single Fatah 1 rocket was intercepted and "not a single pane of glass was broken ". Pakistani 105 mm and 155 mm artillery strikes were far more effective on the border causing casualties but so far. Pakistan has demonstrated zero capability of deep penetration strikes inside india. This fact has been the backbone of India's victory narrative for the last 7 months. So if not a "single pane of glass was broken" under the full might of the Pakistani missile attack how would Pakistan target and destroy "critical infrastructure " ?

Fun fact :
India never listens to any "friends" when it is fighting a war with Pakistan. There are no "friends " who can influence India to accept a ceasefire.
------------------------
I would like to know if you have an answer to this question:
I have a theory ( unsubstantiated) why India chose to let the Pakistani guns keep pounding,

On May 8th, why didn't the Indian Air Force strike at Pakistani gun positions and border outposts all along the LOC and IB ? Silencing the guns would have saved dozens (or hundreds) of BSF and IA lives.
Also could you answer my post below :

Post in thread 'Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion'
https://defencepk.com/forums/thread...ews-updates-and-discussion.21640/post-1050693

 

[Oscar]

Which moderate voices? On any war with Pakistan Modi has unanimous support, not only from his own cabinet, party, elected lawmakers, and defence personnel but also from the opposition. There was not a single dissenting voice from any quarter on the conduct of the war while it was being waged. The denunciation of the ceasefire by the chief opposition, the Congress party came later. Every single political entity in India favored continuation of the war till "victory" , and final destruction of Pakistan. Nationalist government backed TV channels howled in disappointment when the ceasefire was announced because "Lahore had just been captured " and "Karachi was another Gaza. ".
"Incur more losses".. Which losses exactly? Whatever losses India had incurred had already happened on May 6-May 7, There were no aircraft lost after May 7th If losing 7 planes are losses then war strategy must be redefined to the Russians that lost 8 aircraft to Ukrainian S-300 air defenses in a single day in 2022 trying to establish air superiority over Kiev,


How could Pakistan target India's critical infrastructure when it couldn't even target India's air defenses or bases. The best Pakistan could do was launch Fatah 1 rockets from MRLS . According to India every single Fatah 1 rocket was intercepted and "not a single pane of glass was broken ". Pakistani 105 mm and 155 mm artillery strikes were far more effective on the border causing casualties but so far. Pakistan has demonstrated zero capability of deep penetration strikes inside india. This fact has been the backbone of India's victory narrative for the last 7 months. So if not a "single pane of glass was broken" under the full might of the Pakistani missile attack how would Pakistan target and destroy "critical infrastructure " ?

Fun fact :
India never listens to any "friends" when it is fighting a war with Pakistan. There are no "friends " who can influence India to accept a ceasefire.
------------------------
I would like to know if you have an answer to this question:
I have a theory ( unsubstantiated) why India chose to let the Pakistani guns keep pounding,

On May 8th, why didn't the Indian Air Force strike at Pakistani gun positions and border outposts all along the LOC and IB ? Silencing the guns would have saved dozens (or hundreds) of BSF and IA lives.

You are assuming that the Indian top cabinet and the overall bureucracy is completely taken in Modi /Hindutva lalaland and that public voices for unision imply explicit or even implicit support for a conflict. Then you are linking it with a media barrage that from the times of 65 has been known to spout utter nonsense which even their own state functionaries admit to.

When in reality the Indian opposition's vocal objections and refusal to support the government's handling at the time of the conflict, including the lack of war briefing and opposition protests, clearly indicate that there was not unanimous political support for the war while it was being waged If anything, Congress was saying go to war since April and then when the conflict occurred flipped the script and said the war was conducted without consulting them.

Using the Fatah-1 launches as evidence for ineffectiveness is weak. Pakistan has a lot more assets in its favor which it reserves for tighter actions. The S-400 did not need to be burning to a crisp to be taken out of the conflict - if anything, it was the IAF that did not show up beyond single digit hit and run standoff strikes far from Pakistan's borders while PAF aircraft were regularly conducting technical violations during their CAPs with little to no opposition from anything that can be even termed air defense from India.

Whether that is cited as smart "save for the real fight" response or plain withdrawal is moot - Pakistan had escalation options - much less than India's but it did - the leadership strongly preferred not to go there because it left them little else wiggle room.

 

[TsAr]

That would explain why the Indians are soo pissed off right now, and having all these NOTAMs and exercises, in the attempt to try and have a 'successful' operation against Pakistan.

If India does try to do something again, the response should be more significant, as deterrence needs to be established.

Establishing the rocket force was a good idea in that regard. It brings more options to the table for Pakistan.

They are preparing for the next round, which is going to be very intense.

 

[Baibers_1260]

You are assuming that the Indian top cabinet and the overall bureucracy is completely taken in Modi /Hindutva lalaland and that public voices for unision imply explicit or even implicit support for a conflict. Then you are linking it with a media barrage that from the times of 65 has been known to spout utter nonsense which even their own state functionaries admit to.

I agree it is an error to assume unanimous support to the Indian Prime Minister from the opposition on the subject of war with Pakistan . The Indian Prime Minister gives speeches but never holds a press conference. In May 2025 the Central Cabinet certainly appeared to be with the Indian Prime Minister based on the press conferences by the Defence minister and Home Minister.

When in reality the Indian opposition's vocal objections and refusal to support the government's handling at the time of the conflict, including the lack of war briefing and opposition protests, clearly indicate that there was not unanimous political support for the war while it was being waged If anything, Congress was saying go to war since April and then when the conflict occurred flipped the script and said the war was conducted without consulting them.

Post-conflict the stance of the oppositionhh parties and the ruling coalition was unanimous, based on on the fact that most major political parties were represented in the all party parliamentary delegation sent to all major countries to explain the Indian point-of-view on the war.

It may be a grievous error to assume that another conflict is unlikely. Earlier the causus-belli was "terrorism ". Now it is Sir Creek and the annexation of Sindh.

Regardless, a protracted war between India and Pakistan is very likely.

 

[Watandar]

I agree it is an error to assume unanimous support to the Indian Prime Minister from the opposition on the subject of war with Pakistan . The Indian Prime Minister gives speeches but never holds a press conference. In May 2025 the Central Cabinet certainly appeared to be with the Indian Prime Minister based on the press conferences by the Defence minister and Home Minister.

Post-conflict the stance of the oppositionhh parties and the ruling coalition was unanimous, based on on the fact that most major political parties were represented in the all party parliamentary delegation sent to all major countries to explain the Indian point-of-view on the war.

It may be a grievous error to assume that another conflict is unlikely. Earlier the causus-belli was "terrorism ". Now it is Sir Creek and the annexation of Sindh.

Regardless, a protracted war between India and Pakistan is very likely.

A protracted war will wreck Pakistan but India could still be standing , given their much larger size and economy. I hope Pakistani leadership is able to deter India from launching a protracted war.

 

[Ibbi32]

India has so many systems from different vendors its much harder for them to do these things. We will always retain the advantage on that.

Yes reminded of the fact that su-30mkis isreali jammers used to jam all the Russian systems on the aircraft. Typical Indian engineering

 

[Baibers_1260]

A protracted war will wreck Pakistan but India could still be standing , given their much larger size and economy. I hope Pakistani leadership is able to deter India from launching a protracted war.

I hate to give bad news but there is nothing that the Pakistani leadership can do that will deter India from launching a brutal crippling attack on Pakistan because it knows ( or thinks) it can win the war.
Pakistan may not be able to inflict serious damage on India, The only factor here is how much damage India will tolerate politically before once again calling for/accepting a ceasefire.
Luckily Pakistan is not facing an enemy like Russia or Azarbaijan where damage or casualties don't matter as long as the ultimate objective is achieved. If India was like Russia willing to take a million casualties and destruction of industrial and civil infrastructure, Pakistan would be in far more serious trouble.
.