Ex Indian diplomat Bhadrakumar on recent India-Pakistan clashes:

https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2025/May/13/operation-sin...

The bottom line is, Pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear deterrent capability. It is as simple as that. If Operation Sindoor were to be repeated every now and then, it would only have the same results and be halted unceremoniously within 100 hours. Eventually, it will not only lose all novelty to our ecstatic TV audience, but a troubled nation may eventually start blaming an inept leadership.

Pakistan is a major military power. Creating potholes in an odd runway or rendering a radar dysfunctional temporarily will not intimidate that country. Succinctly put, it must be far better for India to take help from Trump, who harbours no animus against us, to solve the problem and move on with life.

Trump’s talks with Hamas and Iran are going well, and he has pacified the Houthis. Even the irascible protagonists in the Ukraine war are currying favour with him. Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are all set to meet on Thursday in Istanbul—a “neutral site”. Beijing is ecstatic that the trade talks in Geneva “will become a new example for China and the US to work hand in hand to inject more stability and positive energy into the world”.

This is the way of the world. We must stop fantasising over newer military doctrines every now and then. Pakistan is a keen observer and adept practitioner. As true as night follows day, Pakistan will soon have a workaround.

--------------

Four days of clashes with Pakistan exposed the faultlines in India’s foreign policy and diplomacy. None of India’s neighbours voiced support for Operation Sindoor; it had a public spat with the European Union; Russia remained largely indifferent, and alongside the Global South, refused to take sides. And after allowing for US mediation, we are now in a sullen mood and denial.

President Donald Trump, in his characteristic way, reacted to our split personality by promising to work with us “to see if, after a ‘thousand years’ (of Hindu-Muslim animosity), a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir”. Trump’s India-Pakistan hyphenation apart, our diplomacy vis-a-vis the US is crumbling. Our ‘middle class’ cannot be happy about it. The paradox is, we are squirming when Trump pays flattering tribute to PM’s “wisdom, and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop the current aggression”. Indeed, “aggression”—Trump’s choice of word—implied a vehement rejection of the raison d’être of Operation Sindoor.

On Monday, Trump tightened the screws further by disclosing he told India and Pakistan that if they didn’t stop fighting, “there won’t be any trade”. In his words: “We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it would have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people would have been killed. I also want to thank VP JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for their work.”

This unsavoury happening is playing out against the backdrop of the government’s frenetic attempts during the previous 100 days to put India on a path of deeper alignment with the US. The attempts to pamper Trump’s ego, even while stomaching insults, give away unilaterally tangible economic benefits to US companies, get India more integrated with America’s military and tech ecosystems—none of this helped India. Consider the following.

Swedish Saab 2000 Erieye’s role in PAF Success

Search Labs | AI Overview
Learn more
Has Sweden given Pakistan more airborne early warning radar ...
The Erieye AEW&C system played a crucial role in the Pakistan Air Force's (PAF) success, particularly during the February 2019 aerial conflict with India. It enabled the PAF to effectively monitor airspace, direct and control fighter jets, and gather intelligence, contributing to its overall air defense capabilities.
Here's a more detailed look at the Erieye's impact:
Airspace Monitoring and Surveillance:
The Erieye's radar system, with a detection range of up to 450 km, allowed the PAF to monitor airspace and detect both air and sea threats. This was particularly important in countering India's terrain masking tactics, which made it difficult for other surveillance systems to detect low-flying aircraft.
Command and Control:
During the 2019 air conflict, the Erieye was used to direct and control 25 fighter jets towards Indian targets, showcasing its command and control capabilities. The Erieye also facilitated communication between the AEW&C and other air and ground assets, enabling coordinated operations.
Intelligence Gathering:
The Erieye's ability to gather intelligence, including electronic intelligence (ELINT), was also crucial for the PAF's overall success.
Decisive Impact:
In conclusion, the Erieye's role in the 2019 aerial conflict and its overall contribution to the PAF's air defense capabilities demonstrate its significant impact on Pakistan's military readiness.

------------------

https://youtu.be/508J-ougyIg?si=zLVQfOCTsJkpRQxe

In this in-depth analysis, we uncover how Sweden’s Saab 2000 Erieye Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system became a game-changer for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), reshaping the balance of power in one of the world’s most volatile military rivalries—India vs. Pakistan.

----------
Pakistan Quietly Inducts a New Erieye AEW&C System - Quwa

https://quwa.org/daily-news/pakistan-quietly-inducts-a-new-erieye-a...

With unit ‘23058’ the PAF’s Erieye fleet has grown to seven to nine aircraft. Quwa was able to visually verify seven aircraft, but public records list serials for eight active units.

To date, the PAF has acquired the Erieye across three orders. The PAF signed its first order in 2006 for six AEW&Cs (plus one standard Saab 2000) for $1.15 billion US. However, this order was reduced to four aircraft due to the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. The cost dropped to $186 million, indicating that each Erieye (not inclusive of training and logistics costs) was priced at $93 million US in 2007.

India’s Great-Power Delusions
How New Delhi’s Grand Strategy Thwarts Its Grand Ambitions
Ashley J. Tellis

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/indias-great-power-delusions

Since the turn of the century, the United States has sought to help India rise as a great power.

--------

In military terms, it is the most significant conventional power in South Asia, but here, too, its advantages over its local rival are not enormous: in fighting in May, Pakistan used Chinese-supplied defense systems to shoot down Indian aircraft. With China on one side and an adversarial Pakistan on the other, India must always fear the prospect of an unpalatable two-front war. Meanwhile, at home, the country is shedding one of its main sources of strength—its liberal democracy—by embracing Hindu nationalism. This evolution could undermine India’s rise by intensifying communal tensions and exacerbating problems with its neighbors, forcing it to redirect security resources inward to the detriment of outward power projection. The country’s illiberal pivot further undermines the rules-based international order that has served it so well.

-------

An illiberal India is also likely to be less powerful. The BJP’s policies have polarized India along ideological and religious lines, and the unresolved issues about how India’s changing demography is to be represented in parliament threaten to exacerbate regional and linguistic divisions. This makes India look increasingly like the highly divided United States. Polarization has been bad enough for Americans, hobbling their institutions and fueling democratic decay. But it will be even worse for India, where the state and society are much weaker. Polarization, for example, could intensify the armed rebellions against New Delhi that have long been underway, creating opportunities for outside powers to sow chaos within India’s borders. Those conflicts could also spill over into India’s neighborhood, as the ideological animus against Muslims exacerbates tensions with both Bangladesh and Pakistan. Polarization would also increase India’s internal security burdens, consuming resources that New Delhi needs to project influence abroad. And even if polarization does not create more internal troubles, it will undermine New Delhi’s efforts to mobilize its population in accumulating national power.

----------

The United States has tolerated these Indian behaviors in the past in part because both countries were largely liberal democracies. As both proceed down the path of illiberalism, however, they will no longer be tied by shared values. Transactional habits may come to dominate the relationship, and Washington could demand more of New Delhi as the price of partnership. Trump’s approach to India in his second term has already signaled such an evolution. Indeed, India’s inability to match China in the future, as well as its commitment to multipolarity, which is fundamentally at odds with American interests, will be deeply inconvenient for the United States. India, it seems, will partner with the United States on some things involving China, but it is unlikely to partner with Washington in every significant arena—even when it comes to Beijing.

If New Delhi cannot effectively balance Beijing in Asia, Washington will invariably wonder how many resources and how much faith it should invest in India. A liberal United States might continue to support a liberal India because helping it would be inherently worthwhile (provided that the costs were not prohibitive and New Delhi’s success still served some American interests). But if either India or the United States remains illiberal, there will be no ideological reason for the latter to help the former.