India - Pakistan Escalatory Dynamic And Strategic Interests Of China.

India–Pakistan Clashes Escalate – Tactical but Calculated

• Thus far, India–Pakistan clashes are taking place just as we discussed in the previous post, where we talked about India threatening to take drastic measures like cutting off Pakistan from the water from the Indus Valley.

• (side note: it would take actual years to interfere with the actual water supply, but suspending the treaty itself - the Indus Waters Treaty - is already threatening to Pakistan and serves as a warning of things to come.)

• The immediate reaction was expected to be limited to airstrikes against militia in Pakistan.

• And indeed, this is what has happened so far: India has carried out airstrikes against what they call terror camps in Pakistani territory.

• There have been some civilian casualties however.

• The operation lasted 25 minutes.

• Key Detail: India’s military was careful to highlight the fact that the strikes were surgical and precise - in other words, they’re trying not to escalate.

• Another piece of evidence for this restraint is that not a single official Pakistani military installation was targeted.

• This supports a point made in a previous post: the disparity in available targets on both sides of the escalation ladder.

• India can limit its initial reaction to the so-called terrorist camps, but Pakistan doesn’t have this luxury - there are no terrorist camps of note based in India that would justify a Pakistani strike.

• Therefore, by definition, Pakistan would have to escalate and strike official Indian military facilities, which would create a new dynamic - potentially a spiral of escalation.

• Now, what has happened so far is that the strikes did cause collateral damage: some women and children were reportedly killed, sparking strong outrage within Pakistan.

• Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared that this was an act of war.

• This is very significant.

• Since if it is, in fact, treated as an act of war, then presumably Pakistan will respond forcefully.

• Otherwise, calling something an act of war and doing nothing is a recipe for deterrence failure and credibility loss.

• Pakistan claims it has shot down five Indian fighter jets that took part in the 25-minute operation.

• These jets were apparently: Three French Rafale jets, One Russian Sukhoi-30, One MiG-29.

• (side note: reputable media sources like the NYT and Reuters have confirmed at least 3/5 of these losses. And France confirmed the loss of at least one Rafale fighter jet.)

• Crucially, they were on Indian territory, allegedly firing standoff missiles from within Indian airspace.

• The fact that Pakistani government officials emphasized that their own fighter jets returned to base safely suggests that air-to-air missiles were used, rather than an air defense system/surface-to-air missile (SAM).

• Pakistan does possess advanced SAMs, including Chinese systems, but they are unlikely to reach these fighter jets - unless India was flying them very close to the Pakistani border.

• The more likely scenario therefore, is that advanced air-to-air missiles were used.

• If that’s true, it raises another critical question: who supplied them? Were these American-made air-to-air missiles, or were they modern Chinese-supplied weapons?

• Pakistan has two air-to-air missiles capable of reaching fighter jets further than 100km:

• 1) PL-15E (China-supplied): This is Pakistan's most advanced BVR missile, featuring active radar guidance and a range of up to 145 km.

• It's deployed on the J-10CE (Chinese) and JF-17 Block III (produced jointly with China) fighter jets.

• 2) AIM-120 AMRAAM (U.S. Supplied): Used primarily on F-16s, this missile has a range of approximately 105 km and is a staple of the PAF’s medium-to-long-range interception capability.

• Early indicators (from debris), suggest Chinese missiles were used.

China’s Mixed Incentives in the India–Pakistan Conflict