India targets military capabilities in Pakistan, not just 'terrorist infrastructure' | DW News

Key Concepts

• Cross-border attacks
• De-escalation
• Kashmir dispute
• Terrorist infrastructure
• Military installations
• Nuclear deterrence
• International mediation
• Proportionate response
• Escalation risks

Rising Tensions Between Pakistan and India

• Main Issue: Escalating tensions between Pakistan and India due to cross-border attacks, with each side blaming the other. The international community is urging de-escalation in the disputed region of Kashmir.
• Trigger: An attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed over two dozen tourists. India blamed Pakistan and conducted strikes on several sites within Pakistan.
• India's Perspective: India claims the strikes targeted carefully selected terrorist infrastructure. They believe previous limited strikes haven't solved the problem of cross-border terrorism.
• Pakistan's Response: Pakistan denies involvement in the Kashmir attack, stating that Indian strikes targeted civilian infrastructure, resulting in 31 deaths. They view India's actions as an act of war and vow to retaliate by targeting military installations, but claim they will avoid targeting civilians.
• Quote: "We will uh uh not hit the civilian population not at all we'll refrain from that but we will definitely hit their military installations military installation military installation their bases their forward positions on all the three uh uh control line working boundary and international boundary" - A statement from Pakistan on their intended response.

International Calls for De-escalation

• Urging Restraint: The US, China, and others are calling for restraint and urging both sides to consider the larger picture of peace and stability. They call on both sides to uphold the UN charter and other international laws.
• Focus on Economic Cooperation: There's an emphasis on the need for peace to expand economic cooperation in the region.
• Limited Success: Despite diplomatic efforts, the political rhetoric and military action indicate that international efforts to contain the risk of war have not yet succeeded.
• Quote: "We urge both sides to bear in mind the larger picture of peace and stability uphold the UN charter and other international law remain calm exercise restraint and refrain from taking actions that may further complicate the situation" - International Community, urging de-escalation
• Quote: "We hope that India and Pakistan will prevent the escalation of tension in the region our region needs peace especially to expand economic cooperation between regional countries and we hope this will happen" - International Community, regarding regional economic cooperation

Analysis by Michael Kougelman (Wilson Center)

• India's Consistency: Kougelman notes India's consistent objective to degrade the threat of cross-border terrorism.
• Scale of Indian Strikes: The initial Indian strikes were of unusual scale and intensity compared to previous crises, with targets in Punjab beyond Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This scale is a key reason for Pakistan's intent to retaliate. According to the Indian Government nine targets were hit in the initial strikes.
• Pakistan's Response Assessment: It's difficult to fully assess Pakistan's response due to the "fog of war." So far, Pakistan has engaged in shelling and sent missiles/drones into India-administered Kashmir. It has not yet acted militarily beyond that region.
• Proportionate Response: If Pakistan seeks a proportionate response, it might eventually target areas beyond India-administered Kashmir, as India's strikes extended beyond Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
• Escalation Risks: If Pakistan escalates further, India might respond, leading to a significant increase in escalation risks.

Likelihood of War and De-escalation

• Nuclear Deterrent: Kougelman doesn't believe a war will occur due to the nuclear factor, as both sides respect each other's nuclear capabilities and cannot afford a war. Nuclear weapons are seen as a deterrent.
• Eventual De-escalation: Eventually, each side will likely reach a point where they feel they can declare "victory" and engage in face-saving measures before being ready to move on.
• Need for External Mediation: This de-escalation might require external mediation from the US, EU, or other countries.
• Current Obstacles: Currently, neither side seems prepared or willing to de-escalate due to significant anger on both sides.
• Quote: "targeting military capabilities in Pakistan and not just what India previously said was terrorist infrastructure" - Michael Kougelman's comment on the target of the conflict
• Quote: "neither side wants a war neither side can uh can afford a war so I do think that eventually uh though it's unclear when each side will come to a point where they feel that they can declare victory engage in some faith saving and then be ready to uh to move on" - Michael Kougelman's assessment of the long term resolution
• Quote: "India feels that it really needs to get it right this time" - Michael Kougelman, regarding India's perspective of the conflict

Synthesis/Conclusion

The situation between Pakistan and India is highly volatile due to recent attacks and retaliatory strikes. While the international community is pushing for de-escalation, deep-seated anger and mistrust on both sides are hindering progress. The presence of nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent against all-out war, but the risk of further escalation remains high. External mediation will likely be necessary to facilitate a de-escalation and prevent further conflict. The scale of India's initial strikes, the potential for Pakistan to retaliate beyond Kashmir, and the strong emotions involved are all factors contributing to the precarious nature of the situation.