- 1 day ago
On this week’s Chakravyu podcast, host Gaurav Sawant of India Today TV and Walter Ladwig III, Associate Professor of King's College London analyse Operation Sindoor, a groundbreaking military operation carried out by India which destroyed nine terror launch pads and killed over 100 terrorists deep inside Pakistani territory in May.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00India's Operation Sindur, where the Indian Armed Forces initially targeted nine terror training camps,
00:09including the headquarters of terror, Lashkar-e-Taibait Mureetke and Jaish-e-Muhammad at Bahawalpur,
00:15then punched holes through Pakistan's air defense system, six radars were destroyed,
00:21and then, once Pakistan targeted military installations in India,
00:26India hit back targeting 11 air bases in Pakistan, including the command and control crucial Noor Khan air base,
00:35Sargodha, the deepest strike, and of course, the S-400 air defense system in an offensive role,
00:40taking down an advance early warning airborne system 320 kilometers deep inside Pakistan.
00:47To talk more about Operation Sindur, its outcomes, and the apprehension that could conflict escalate with Operation Sindur still on,
00:59with me on the Chakraviu podcast is Professor Walter Ladwig III, Associate Professor at King's College London.
01:07Professor, welcome on the Chakraviu podcast.
01:10Thanks so much, Gaurav. Happy to be here.
01:11You've been studying Operation Sindur, and this is the first time that one nuclear weapon state
01:19targeted another nuclear weapon state, which was helped by a third nuclear weapon state.
01:25What's your reading of Operation Sindur?
01:27Well, this is really groundbreaking in our understanding of conflict in the nuclear era
01:33and conflict between nuclear armed states, because as you said,
01:35this is the first time that we've had sustained airstrikes from one nuclear armed state on another
01:42without any kind of escalation, well, it never happened before, and then no escalation to a nuclear level.
01:49And then, as you said, there is this additional factor of China as a principal military patron of Pakistan.
01:55So much of the world is going to be learning and studying this, I think, going forward for decades.
02:02We're really charting new history in our understanding of how nuclear weapons affect conflict at the conventional level.
02:09Has it ever happened before anywhere?
02:12And you've studied so many conflicts.
02:15There are so many conflicts that are currently underway.
02:18Even in the United States and Soviet Union, you've never had nuclear weapon states launching missiles or aircraft at each other.
02:26Never. So there were proxy conflicts of sorts between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
02:33So reports, say, of Soviet pilots flying MiGs in the Korean War on behalf of the North Koreans.
02:41Allegations of the same, perhaps, in Vietnam.
02:45But the only direct conflicts we know of, the Soviets and the Chinese fought over a disputed river border in the 1960s.
02:54But those were really kind of hand-to-hand combat with clubs and bats, not weapons.
03:01Of course, we have Cargill, which was very tightly bound.
03:06And the Indian Air Force at the time was very clear in its instructions not to cross the LOC
03:12and was very constrained in making sure that that didn't get breached.
03:17We have Galwan.
03:18Again, hand-to-hand combat, lives lost, two nuclear-armed states.
03:24Never, ever airstrikes, missiles, and sustained multi-day operations.
03:30This is the first time this has ever happened.
03:32Yeah, 88 hours, that conflict.
03:33And it's not that Pakistan did not try to hit back from their J-10Cs, the JF-17s, the PL-15s, air-to-air, long-range missiles.
03:46They used a high-speed rocket, as the government put it, to target one of our crucial bases in India.
03:53They may have failed and that rocket fell in Sirsa.
03:57But what is your understanding of India's response to Pakistan's actions?
04:02Well, I think it really demonstrated, the prime minister called it a new normal.
04:08It certainly demonstrated a new level, right?
04:10We can see a historical trajectory going back to 2016.
04:14So we had the surgical strike after Uri, which really surfaced things that had been going on before.
04:20This was not the first time there was a cross-border raid, but the first time that the government made it so public.
04:25Then we had Balakot, so that was a big deal because this was, in the nuclear era, the first time an operation had been carried out into Pakistan proper, right?
04:36There was an assumption among many analysts and observers that Kashmir was seen as somehow different,
04:43but crossing over into the unambiguous sovereign territory of either India or Pakistan would be a real escalation.
04:51And that proved not necessarily to be the case.
04:53But here now you have deep strikes into Pakistani Punjab on night one,
04:58and then repeated attacks on multiple air facilities, suppression of radar,
05:04all happening, again, without necessarily escalation to anything approaching the nuclear level,
05:11but really showing that India possessed not only the ability, which was really quite significant,
05:17because you had Chinese-made air defense systems of a rather modern quality that were, you know, suppressed and defeated,
05:24but also the political will to carry this out.
05:26The point that you raised about India striking terror in the heart of Pakistan's Punjab province,
05:36Muridke is practically Lahore, or Bahawalpur, southern Punjab, what did that indicate to you?
05:44To me, it indicated that no area is off limits.
05:48Again, I think there was a latent assumption among some observers,
05:53and perhaps some actors in Pakistan themselves,
05:57that it would be too escalatory, it would be too politically sensitive,
06:02to really reach out and carry out operations in this manner,
06:09coming particularly from outside the country.
06:11Again, we know there are allegations on the Pakistani side about maybe there are people on the ground
06:16doing certain things or facilitating the elimination of certain actors.
06:20But this is a real clear, unambiguous launch of ordnance from one side to the other to target something.
06:29Again, many observers felt this was probably something that would be too politically fraught,
06:36and therefore there was a degree of protection or sanctuary here.
06:40I think this now shows that there is not a sanctuary.
06:43So, has that message in your view gone across to Pakistan, to the terrorists in Pakistan,
06:51the army in Pakistan, and to the world at large,
06:53that no part of Pakistan is safe for terrorists or terror supporters?
06:58Because I have covered counter-terror operations for a very long time.
07:02When 2611 Mumbai terror attacks happened, we were in Mumbai City covering 2611,
07:08and there was no response, and we've covered terror even before that.
07:12When our parliament was targeted, for 10 months, the armies were at the borders.
07:18There was no action.
07:20In midst of all of that, you had Pakistani terrorists who attacked one of our very crucial military stations at Kaluchak,
07:28massacred army families, including little children.
07:31And that was almost as if Pakistan was saying, we're a nuclear weapons state,
07:36we'll come into your army garrison, we'll kill your army families, and not just soldiers,
07:42and you can't do anything, and India did nothing.
07:44So, both under late Prime Minister Wajpayee and late Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,
07:49two massive provocations and no response.
07:52And after Pehlgaam, no part of Pakistan, from Skardu in Pakistan, occupied Jammu Kashmir, that airfield,
08:01to Noor Khan, to Bholari in Sindh, to Malir Kant in Karachi,
08:05if they were targeted, and across Pakistan's Punjab, Sargodha, Jacob Abad, Raheem Yar Khan, Noor Khan,
08:12what's the message to Asim Munir and his men?
08:15I think the message is that India can reach out and strike.
08:19I think the challenge is that this is a game of constant adaptation.
08:24So, if they had any illusions, if they had any sense, or were somehow a little more relaxed,
08:31a little, took things for granted, because they thought they won't go this far, they now know.
08:37So, there will be adaptation.
08:39There will be further efforts, particularly by these various groups,
08:45to disperse and conceal their areas of operation.
08:49They will make it harder to be found.
08:52And it's, we often liken this in the U.S. to a kid's game of whack-a-mole,
08:58where, you know, you constantly have the thing popping up,
09:01and every time you whack it down in one hole, it pops out of another.
09:04And this is the challenge.
09:05And countries around the world have faced this with respect to when you have the ability to track,
09:11you have the ability to strike, it doesn't mean you know where everyone is at all time,
09:16and they will get smarter at evading and so forth.
09:19The good news lesson is, even if it's harder for you to target them,
09:24these organizations are now going to be spending a lot more time on their own operational security.
09:29And when they break into smaller cells, and when they have additional cutouts and communication channels
09:34such that they're not so easy to track and detect,
09:36when they have to spend their time moving from safe house to safe house,
09:39that's time they're not spending conducting operations.
09:41So, even if it's harder to necessarily replicate next time around, if it happens,
09:48and it probably will happen, Operation Sindor,
09:52the fact that these folks now have to have a higher level of security,
09:55have to keep on the move, have to think about these things,
09:58imposes real costs on them that limits their effectiveness.
10:02So far, was there the impression that Pakistan has nuclear weapons,
10:06and Pakistan has the immunity to do anything?
10:10There will not be any massive response.
10:13You know, maybe an artillery, a punitive strike at the LOC,
10:16or something a little more, and nothing beyond.
10:21If, now that Government of India has said, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said,
10:24India will not make any distinction between state and non-state actors.
10:28Did you also get that impression, when you saw co-commanders and Pakistani generals
10:32at the funeral of terrorists, and a terrorist recently, his video surfaced,
10:37went viral world over, where he was saying that the Pakistan army chief
10:40ordered the core commanders to come for funerals of terrorists of,
10:44they don't call themselves terrorists, of Jaishin, Mohammed, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
10:47That distinction between state and non-state is gone in Pakistan.
10:50I was really surprised, particularly when those videos surfaced,
10:53because for a long time, I think the Pakistani military played the plausible deniability game,
11:01and, you know, sort of successfully, within reasonable doubt,
11:06obscured exactly what the connections were and how tight the linkage were,
11:09so that even observers from the outside would wonder, you know,
11:13are these people from the military side sort of freelancing in their spare time?
11:18Are they, you know, retired people who are close to the government,
11:22but acting with deniability?
11:24To have serving, uniformed officers in that capacity, you know,
11:31really eliminates any kind of doubt in my mind about the level of linkages and connections.
11:37I mean, I was really shocked,
11:40because quite often they're really good at the propaganda messaging
11:44and keeping things, you know, confusing and distorted,
11:47and here I don't know what they were thinking,
11:50because they kind of completely showed their hand, in my opinion.
11:53So, I was doing a course in the United Kingdom in 2005,
11:59when the London bombings took place, the 7-7 London bombings,
12:02and they were traced back to Pakistani-origin British passport holders,
12:08but who had come back to Pakistan for training and radicalization.
12:13So, they got radicalized in Pakistan and carried out 7-7.
12:16There have been instances across the world
12:18where second-generation radicalized Pakistani Muslims have carried out terror attacks,
12:23including an attempt by an air vice marshal's son in New York
12:28tried to blow up the World Trade Center, that Times Square area.
12:34Why is the world not cracking down on this radicalization
12:40and Pakistan's state support to that radicalization,
12:44even though the world is suffering?
12:45So, I know it's a broader phenomenon in the UK
12:49that, I would say, second- or third-generation Muslim immigrants,
12:54in some cases, British citizens, have become radicalized.
12:58I think what the power of the internet
13:01and the power of certain types of kind of hate preachers
13:05has been a real serious concern,
13:08and it goes beyond just the British-Pakistani community.
13:11I know there are elements that are being dealt with.
13:17I think it's perhaps not seen as quite kind of clearly incoherent,
13:21as you spelled out,
13:22but it is a big concern for the security services in Britain.
13:26Not my area of specialty,
13:28but I definitely know that that is a topic that they spend a lot of time on.
13:32And then, increasingly, you're seeing sort of,
13:34we had last year the incidents in Leicester
13:37and sort of violence as well.
13:40So, you know, I think for a while there was a view that,
13:44you know, this is a sort of success story.
13:47It's one where there certainly needs to be an eye kept on it, I think.
13:51Yeah, because we've suffered,
13:54and we know this firsthand,
13:57and when we see it happen in other parts of the world,
13:59we're often surprised why would they permit it
14:01as being politically correct more important than doing the right thing.
14:06But, of course, that's, you know,
14:08and aside from the main story,
14:09and I want to come back to the main story for a bit,
14:11a bit longer.
14:13Your reading of Pakistan's Army Chief, Aasem Munir,
14:17and the kind of speeches that he made,
14:21the two-nation theory,
14:23you know, saying Hindus and Muslims are different,
14:26we are very different,
14:27and this was something like Jinnah would talk that led to partition.
14:30Do you see him as, one of my guests said,
14:34Ambassador Ajay Visariya,
14:35that he's more, Aasem Munir is like a cross between Jinnah and Zia.
14:41I just, I have to say,
14:43even, you know, when the sort of,
14:46he was, his name was touted and floated,
14:49and before that speech,
14:51there were other sort of writings and indications.
14:53I mean, it just seems to be such a sort of retrograde and regressive view.
15:00The fact of the matter is,
15:02Pakistan needs to have an understanding
15:07and a working relationship with India.
15:10Pakistan cannot be, afford, quite frankly,
15:13to be locked into a continued cycle of hostilities.
15:18You know, this is a country that's on its 24th or 25th IMF bailout,
15:22you know, endemic problems with the economy,
15:25with employment, with energy.
15:28Pakistan needs a break.
15:30And so, an army chief who has such a divisive worldview,
15:37you know, does not augur well for getting Pakistan
15:40into the political situation it needs vis-a-vis India, right?
15:43Even if we don't imagine anytime soon
15:46that there will be a flourishing of cross-border trade
15:50and intercourse and interstate reactions,
15:53it just needs to be able to focus on itself
15:55and not focus on anything else.
15:57And I just don't see that happening under this kind of leadership.
16:00On the contrary, there are apprehensions that,
16:03you know, as you very rightly pointed out,
16:05that there's an apprehension there could be another terror attack
16:08on India or an Indian interest,
16:11maybe through Bangladesh, maybe through Nepal.
16:12The apprehension is that after his meeting,
16:16the American president,
16:17and this is his second meeting at the White House,
16:20the security deal with Saudi Arabia
16:22and the assistance that he's getting from China
16:24with three godfathers,
16:26he'll be emboldened to carry out terror attacks.
16:28What's your reading?
16:30Well, I mean, a number of those developments
16:32are incredibly surprising.
16:34I mean, particularly on the U.S.-Pakistan front.
16:37I mean, at the end of the Biden administration,
16:40Pakistan was not even on the radar
16:43of any significant policymaker in the U.S.
16:46In fact, no one above the assistant secretary of state
16:49at the time, Donald Liu,
16:50thought about Pakistan on a daily basis.
16:53And the way in which it has elevated to the top
16:56of the Trump team's agenda is, I think, really shocking
17:00and caught a number of analysts off guard.
17:05Now, there's a variety of reasons there.
17:07There, of course, has been some very savvy political lobbying.
17:11I think there's a crypto interest as well
17:14within the White House.
17:15But just to link the two pieces together,
17:17I mean, one of the things I find really interesting
17:21about this Saudi-Pakistan deal is,
17:27you know, I have no firsthand information on this.
17:30This is just my kind of speculation and observation.
17:33But the U.S. has been trying to exit the Middle East
17:37for a long time, right?
17:38We can go back all the way to the Obama administration's
17:40pivot to Asia and the fact that no matter how many times
17:45and how many administrations attempted to focus
17:47their attention there on the Indo-Pacific,
17:49they kept getting pulled back to the Middle East.
17:52You know, people often forget this,
17:55but in the first decade after independence
17:58and when the United States first started getting involved
18:01in Pakistan, after trying to reach out,
18:03the Truman administration did approach India first
18:05and that didn't work out.
18:07The relationship with Pakistan was in the context
18:09of the security of the Gulf and the broader Middle East, right?
18:12Pakistan was seen as part of the broader Muslim world.
18:16South Asia wasn't necessarily a concept then.
18:18And the U.S. wanted Pakistan to help provide security
18:23in the Gulf against a possible Russian invasion.
18:26And that is why the partnerships with Turkey,
18:29the partnerships with Iran, the partnerships with Pakistan,
18:31you know, you can see that whole line there.
18:33And in some respects, I think the Trump administration
18:35has returned to that kind of model.
18:38And I do know at sort of mid-levels
18:41of the Department of Defense,
18:42the Deputy Secretary of Defense for South Asia,
18:45Andy Byers, is really into this idea
18:48of the Nixon Doctrine, right?
18:49After Vietnam, the U.S. said,
18:52hey, we're not going to primarily police parts
18:54of the world, but we're going to train
18:56and equip other countries to do it.
18:57So the Shah of Iran, we're going to give him arms
18:59and training and equipment
19:01so he can kind of keep stability in this area.
19:04I could actually see the Trump administration
19:06having encouraged this kind of partnership.
19:11And perhaps one of the things that Munir sold Trump on
19:14is that Pakistan can be an asset with Saudi
19:16to try to keep stability in the Gulf
19:18so the Americans don't have to.
19:20And do you think that's even feasible in case,
19:23not that I have any information that any country
19:26would want to target Saudi Arabia,
19:28but should there be escalation of tension
19:30between Saudi Arabia and Israel, like Qatar,
19:34but Saudi doesn't, you know, keep the Hamas.
19:36So there is no reason.
19:37I think Saudi actually, before the current situation in Gaza,
19:43they were inching towards, you know,
19:46Abraham Accord, some kind of normalization.
19:49Yeah, yeah.
19:49And then the IMEC, India, Middle East,
19:52Europe Economic Corridor,
19:53so they're looking at economic prosperity.
19:55Not that Pakistan would assist Saudi Arabia
19:58against Israel,
19:59or Saudi Arabia assisting Pakistan against India.
20:02It does not look feasible.
20:05Look, history tells us that every time
20:08Pakistan sells itself as an asset in this kind of way
20:11and gets itself military assistance of any kind,
20:14it's put towards India.
20:15It's not put towards this mission to help defend the Gulf.
20:19It's not put towards this mission to stave off communism.
20:22And so if something comes to this,
20:25Saudi military aid, U.S. military aid, what have you,
20:28it will be used to modernize and focus towards India.
20:31So the effort is to keep India down?
20:33No, no, no.
20:34I'm just saying that Pakistan is very good
20:36at selling itself as a partner to the Americans.
20:39Yes.
20:39And particularly this administration,
20:41which unlike Trump won,
20:43which did have a number of credible South Asia specialists,
20:47the White House does not have people
20:49who have real deep subject matter expertise here.
20:52And so, you know,
20:54Mounir and his team can probably spin a good story
20:56with the aid of lobbying
20:59and, you know, Trump,
21:00who doesn't know very much about the region.
21:04I could easily see them being sold on this idea.
21:07What do you think is the story behind Trump trying to get back,
21:11Americans trying to get back the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan?
21:15What's the game at, what's at play there?
21:18I have no idea.
21:19I really have no idea with that one.
21:22And again,
21:22trying to make sense of everything the Trump administration does
21:26would be a full-time job for many individuals.
21:30So I can't begin to speculate on this one.
21:32Because first, you know,
21:33you're the one who wants to leave.
21:35Absolutely.
21:35And you leave in such horrible circumstances.
21:38You leave such kiosk behind,
21:40hand it over to Taliban,
21:41and then you say,
21:41I want it back.
21:42Unless Pakistan has told them that the dream
21:45that we will help you in Afghanistan,
21:47and if that is to counter Iran,
21:50isn't Pakistan buying more trouble for itself?
21:53The Shia should need trouble.
21:54Yemen's already saying we've got 25,000 graves dug up
21:57for Pakistani soldiers in Saudi Arabia.
22:00Again,
22:01Pakistan needs stability.
22:03It needs a working relationship with all of its neighbors,
22:06and it needs to focus on itself and its economy,
22:09its burgeoning young population
22:10who need jobs,
22:11who need education.
22:12It doesn't need any more trouble
22:14anywhere else in the world.
22:15Yeah,
22:15and it seems to be buying it
22:17or getting it for free everywhere.
22:18Exactly.
22:19Trouble on every border,
22:21Afghanistan,
22:22Iran,
22:22India.
22:23And do you see that
22:24Pakistan,
22:26you know,
22:27suffering because of this,
22:28the number of soldiers
22:29they're losing
22:30in Balochistan,
22:32in Khaybar Pakhtoonkhoa,
22:34what's happening,
22:35and yet no sign of stability.
22:37Will,
22:38in your appreciation,
22:39Asim Munir
22:40use this opportunity
22:41to foment more trouble
22:43with India,
22:45given the fact that
22:46he could not succeed,
22:48though he succeeded in elevating himself
22:49to field marshal,
22:51to elevate himself as president
22:53of Pakistan?
22:54Would you try
22:54and mess around once again?
22:56Oh,
22:56I don't,
22:57oh,
22:57I think the fact
23:00that Sindhuur ended
23:02with this Pakistani
23:05counter-narrative
23:06of success
23:07means that they have
23:10a plausible reason
23:11to not push at the moment.
23:14And again,
23:15because of the economy
23:16and because of
23:17their own domestic troubles,
23:19I would think
23:20that any serious strategic leader
23:22would take advantage
23:23of that opportunity.
23:24They could claim
23:25that they,
23:25you know,
23:26saved face
23:27and double down domestically
23:29and try and get
23:30their own house in order.
23:32It would be
23:33certainly a reckless
23:34and a very
23:37unstrategic approach
23:40to try to go
23:41another round
23:42with India
23:42at the moment.
23:43But,
23:44you know,
23:45what is the quality
23:46of the man,
23:47right?
23:47Is he a deep
23:50military thinker
23:51or is he a sort of
23:52a temperamental
23:54fellow
23:55who thinks tactically
23:56but not
23:57at the highest levels?
23:58I don't know.
23:59What's your reading
24:00of Operation Sindhuur
24:01in terms of
24:02who had the edge,
24:03who had the upper hand?
24:04I think India
24:05clearly came out
24:06with the upper hand.
24:07It had
24:07a clear goal
24:10in terms of targeting
24:11the facilities
24:12it targeted
24:12on the first night.
24:14It achieved that.
24:15Now,
24:15whether or not
24:16those were
24:18occupied and active
24:20at the moment,
24:21how much degradation
24:22took place
24:23in terms of
24:24those organizations,
24:25had many people
24:26already gone to ground,
24:27had they anticipated,
24:29you know,
24:29that will only
24:31come out over time.
24:32But certainly
24:32the ability
24:34and intent to act
24:35and then when the conflict
24:36did not end
24:37on those terms
24:40on that first night,
24:41in the subsequent rounds,
24:42again,
24:43the ability
24:43and willingness
24:44to penetrate
24:45Pakistani air defense
24:46to strike
24:47a range of air bases,
24:48to suppress
24:49radars
24:53and air defense systems
24:54and to
24:55pretty credibly
24:56defend their own territory
24:58and airspace
24:59really showed
25:01a high level
25:01of ability
25:03and political will
25:05to act
25:07and then,
25:07you know,
25:07brought to a close
25:09before things,
25:11you know,
25:11potentially escalated
25:12too far.
25:13So I really think
25:14demonstrating that ability,
25:16you know,
25:16we can't say
25:17that the IAF
25:18had achieved
25:18full air dominance
25:20over Pakistani territory.
25:22They'd be going too far.
25:23But they were carrying out
25:24strikes at will,
25:26which is a pretty
25:26significant sign.
25:28So,
25:28yes,
25:29were platforms lost,
25:30we don't know
25:31exactly how many.
25:32We at some point
25:33in time will.
25:34But,
25:35I mean,
25:36not to
25:36denigrate
25:38the risks
25:40undertaken,
25:41but,
25:41you know,
25:41military,
25:42you suffer casualties
25:43in war.
25:44You undertake military operations.
25:46You expect
25:47that damage
25:48will be inflicted.
25:50And so that's part
25:51of the price
25:52and part of the process.
25:53It's also why
25:53we need to use
25:54military force responsibly
25:56because there are
25:56real lives at risk.
25:57But to say that,
25:59you know,
25:59it was a failure
26:00because a plane
26:01or two or three
26:02were shot down
26:03is in my
26:04calculation wrong.
26:07I will let that
26:08be the last word
26:08on this part
26:09of the show.
26:10Walter Ladder III
26:11for joining me here
26:12on the Check Review
26:13Podcast, sir.
26:14Thank you very much.
26:15So the message
26:17very clear,
26:19on the 10th of May
26:20when Pakistan
26:21shot a ceasefire,
26:23those were
26:2411 Pakistani
26:26air bases
26:27down,
26:27multiple aircraft
26:28and now that's
26:28come out in public
26:29domain.
26:30And advanced
26:31early warning
26:32airborne platform
26:33324 kilometers
26:34away
26:34was downed
26:36and Pakistani
26:37air bases
26:37across the country.
26:39We leave it to you
26:40to decide
26:40who had the upper hand.
26:42I'm very clear
26:43about it.
26:44India had Pakistan
26:45on the mat.
26:46For joining me here
26:47on the Check Review
26:48Podcast,
26:49many thanks.
Recommended
47:21
|
Up next
0:50
1:33
Be the first to comment