While the February 2019 attack was more of a symbolic nature, the May 2025 conflict was much bigger, during which the Indian military targeted civilian areas deep inside Pakistan in the name of targeting the terrorist infrastructure.
The 2025 conflict involved missile and drone strikes, aerial combat, and multi-domain operations by the two nuclear-armed powers. A slight miscalculation from any of the sides could have resulted in a nuclear catastrophe – a fact that has been repeatedly underlined by the US President Donald Trump.
This possible scenario was averted due to US intervention in the wake of reports of the downing of more than half a dozen Indian combat aircraft, including top-of-the-line French-made Rafale.
Though India officially rejects any third-party involvement in facilitating the ceasefire or even the downing of its aircraft, President Trump’s assertion and Pakistan’s acknowledgement of his role in defusing the situation contradict the Indian position.
However, beyond the official victory claims from both sides, the conflict exposed their military capabilities, strategic limitations, economic vulnerabilities, and ongoing challenges to reconciliation.
India upped the ante by its willingness to strike deeper into Pakistan. On its part, Pakistan effectively employed Chinese-supplied systems, especially in beyond-visual-range combat, with confirmed reports of Indian aircraft losses. Pakistan’s response demonstrated its ability to hit back.
All through this brief conflict, the shadow of nuclear weapons lurked. There was nuclear signalling as Pakistan convened its Nuclear Command Authority. However, Islamabad stuck to its policy of restraint, which was bolstered by external pressure in defusing the situation.
Related
Lessons learnt?
This brief conflict, however, also showed that a longer war could have catastrophic costs – both human and economic.
India — with its $4 trillion-plus GDP — could better absorb the shocks of war but would have to pay the economic price in the form of disrupted trade, investor flight, and massive military expenditure.
The war is a bigger challenge for Pakistan’s fragile economy, hit by inflation, low growth and a massive debt burden.
That’s why Pakistan would seek an intense but short conflict to inflict maximum pain on India in the shortest possible time, while using its nuclear weapons to shield against a prolonged war.
But the brinkmanship from both sides has massive risks and humanitarian costs.
The latest conflict underlines the fact that a durable peace in South Asia would remain elusive until the core dispute of Kashmir is resolved in line with the UN resolutions.
The newly created issue of the Indus Waters Treaty by India is also tied to the broader Kashmir problem, but this needs to be addressed on a war-footing to prevent the eruption of renewed hostilities.
Any possible water war would have disastrous implications for the region. The only way to prevent Armageddon is to return to the World Bank-brokered treaty in letter and spirit.
Going forward, any normal and meaningful diplomatic engagement would require New Delhi to restore the statehood of the India-administered part of Kashmir to the pre-August 5, 2019 position.
By breaching one red line after another, New Delhi has closed the doors of normal diplomatic engagement with Pakistan.
Only the resumption of normal diplomacy would lead to the revival and expansion of confidence-building measures, including adherence to the ceasefire at the LoC, military-to-military dialogues, trade, and people-to-people contacts. The two countries also need to address one another’s concerns about terrorism.
The wish list can be expanded, but with positions hardening on both sides, there appears to be little chance of a diplomatic breakthrough in the near future.
For now, the gloves are off.
