Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
A new armed conflict between India and Pakistan is beginning in the disputed region of Kashmir. After days of high tensions between the two sides, the Indian military launched a missile strike on Pakistani targets, claiming that all the sites hit were facilities of terrorist organizations. Pakistan responded to the Indian military action by shooting down enemy fighter jets and moving troops towards the border – as well as vowing to retaliate with “full force”.
As well known, tensions between Pakistan and India have been rising recently, indicating the beginning of a new armed confrontation in the region. The main reason for the current friction was a terrorist attack that occurred on April 22 in the Pahalgam region of Indian-controlled Kashmir. At the time, 26 Indian tourists were murdered by members of a Pakistan-based extremist organization. India accuses the Pakistani government of being complicit in the attack and of cooperating with terrorist groups. Pakistan vehemently denies the accusations and says it is working to find those responsible for these acts.
As tensions escalated, India authorized a military response to the Pahalgam incident. In response, Pakistan warned that it would react to any military attack with high-intensity retaliation. Several international actors attempted to mediate the crisis and urged caution on both sides. The main players in the negotiations were Russia and Iran, countries that have strong ties to both sides in the conflict. China, to a lesser extent, is also trying to calm the situation, but is at a diplomatic disadvantage in this regard because it is itself a rival of India and an ally of Pakistan.
Eventually, military confrontations finally began, with India launching an attack on the morning of May 7. At least nine targets were hit inside Pakistani territory. The affected areas were not limited to the disputed border area, but India claimed that it had selected only terrorist targets.
“Our actions have been focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in the selection of targets and method of execution,” Indian officials said in a statement.
Pakistani military reactions were immediate, with local armed forces launching missiles and artillery shells against the enemy. Reportedly, several Indian fighter jets were shot down while conducting military maneuvers in Pakistani territory and the disputed area, although there is still dispute over the actual number of aircraft shot down.
“At least two aircraft were said to have gone down in India and the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir, according to three officials, local news reports, and accounts of witnesses (…) One Indian official [however] confirmed the crash of three aircraft, but cautioned that the reasons were not clear. Two other Indian security officials confirmed reports that some Indian aircraft had gone down, but would not elaborate on the details,” an article about the case reads.
Pakistan has also authorized preparations for “appropriate” retaliatory action, saying that military measures so far has been aimed solely at countering “Indian aggression.” According to Pakistani officials, military moves in self-defense should not be seen as retaliatory, and that the country’s response will be more complex and have a greater impact on the enemy.
The world is concerned about this escalation because both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. In addition, both countries have a problem with military inexperience. Despite having fought each other militarily in four wars, Pakistan and India have rarely participated in high-intensity armed conflicts, and are not adapted to the complexity of contemporary warfare. The fact that several Indian fighter jets were shot down in the first hours of the conflict already shows the military inexperience of the involved agents. This increases concerns about the possible use of nuclear weapons, since it is easier to resort to extreme resources than to maintain long-term tactical planning in a prolonged war.
At the international level, a war in South Asia would be disastrous for multipolar interests. The conflict delays the proposal to create a military cooperation agreement within the BRICS framework, since a founding country of the BRICS (India) is in a situation of open conflict with a country allied with another member of the organization (Pakistan-China). In addition, Sino-Pakistani cooperation is particularly affected, since Pakistani territory is a key factor in the logistics of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
In the same sense, a prolonged war would have negative consequences on Iran and the increasingly normalized Taliban-led Afghanistan, which would certainly suffer partial security impacts. Another factor to consider is that India is a key partner of Russia, as Moscow sells oil to the Indians who subsequently resell it to Western countries – circumventing sanctions and ensuring mutual benefits. This partnership would be severely disturbed by the conflict, generating losses for both sides.
In practice, the conflict is of interest only to the West, since the major Eurasian powers will be affected by the hostilities. This is a conflict that delays the geopolitical transition towards multipolarity and favors Western interests in destabilizing the Eurasian region. It is best for both sides to calm down and start negotiations, otherwise there will be long-term negative consequences.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
