What's new

How Pakistan’s spending blitz helped win over Donald Trump and flip U.S. Policy

BouncerGuy

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2023
Runs
39,157
Pakistan signed a series of high-priced contracts with prominent Washington lobbying firms this spring, just weeks before the White House announced favorable new policies that gave the country one of the world’s more enviable tariff rates and an edge over its archrival, India.

The policy changes heralded a turnabout in Pakistan’s previously rocky relationship with the Trump administration and have largely been attributed to shrewd diplomacy by Islamabad, which has lavished President Trump with the kind of public accolades and big-ticket business deals he relishes.

But the lobbying contracts, which totaled millions of dollars and held out the promises of lower tariffs and access to Mr. Trump, suggest an additional reason for Pakistan’s improved standing: a campaign to influence the president, which included employing some of his closest confidants.

In April and May, as Pakistan ramped up its charm offensive, it spent at least three times as much as India on lobbying in Washington, according to contracts filed with the Department of Justice. As Islamabad rapidly hired lobbyists, including Mr. Trump’s former business partners and bodyguard, its relationship with the United States blossomed and India’s deteriorated.

Many factors may help explain India and Pakistan’s recent divergent trajectories. One is that Pakistan agreed to credit Mr. Trump with ending its military dispute with India in May and to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India refused to do either, arguing that U.S. involvement had nothing to do with the cease-fire. Islamabad also eagerly pitched what became a $500 million mineral extraction agreement and opened its markets to American farm goods.

But the timeline of events and the speedy U.S. warming toward Pakistan also coincides with the lobbying effort.

“You can sort of look at the dots connecting themselves,” said Michael Kugelman, formerly the director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, who added that Pakistan’s lobbying effort was one of several key factors in its turnaround.

“There were lobbyists charged with dealing with the tariff issue, then Pakistan’s tariffs come down,” he added. “There are lobbyists contracted to promote economic cooperation, then you have all this interest from the U.S. in critical minerals and energy.”

Over the course of a turbulent few weeks this spring, as the Trump administration raised tariffs on countries around the world and Pakistan found itself on the brink of war with India, Islamabad entered contracts with six Washington firms for nearly $5 million in eventual retainer fees.

Among the firms Pakistan hired was Seiden Law LLP, which subcontracted Javelin Advisors, a government relations venture. Javelin’s founders include George Sorial, a longtime Trump Organization executive, and Keith Schiller, Mr. Trump’s former bodyguard, who served as director of Oval Office operations during the first Trump administration.

A million-dollar contract signed between Pakistan and Seiden Law on April 8 promised “a mutually agreed upon number of meetings to enhance Pakistani-U.S. leadership level engagements at the White House.”

Another agreement with Javelin was inked on April 24, just two days after militants killed 26 people in a terrorist attack in India-controlled Kashmir, and Pakistan and India found themselves on a path to war.

Just weeks after the contracts were finalized, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, the senior-most leader in Pakistan’s powerful military, arrived in Washington, where he met the Javelin principals.

The following afternoon, June 18, Field Marshal Munir had a private lunch with Mr. Trump at the White House. It was a remarkable meeting: Pakistani Army chiefs had accompanied civilian leaders to presidential meetings, but there is no record of one meeting on his own with a president at the White House.

“We realized we needed to establish a channel at the most senior level,” Mr. Seiden said. Citing attorney-client privilege, he declined to discuss the details of the sit-down with the field marshal, but in a statement his firm said the Pakistanis credited it with its improved fortunes in Washington.

“Many people were instrumental in this that didn’t involve us,” Javelin Advisors said in a statement to The New York Times. “The Pakistani personnel told us we were instrumental in the progress made with the U.S. government.”

An official familiar with the discussions said Javelin approached one of the president’s aides to facilitate a meeting, but the lunch was ultimately organized by the National Security Council.

Pakistani Embassy officials did not respond to requests for comment about efforts to improve their relationship with the White House.

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that Pakistan has been a “vital partner” in countering “radical Islamic terrorism” since the start of the administration. Mr. Trump’s use of tariffs to “end the conflict between India and Pakistan,” she added, “enhanced the president’s positive relationship with Pakistani leaders.”

By the fall, Mr. Trump had called Pakistan’s army chief his “favorite field marshal” and the nation’s support for his Gaza peace plan “incredible.” It was a sharp turn for a country that Mr. Trump had said in his first term offered “nothing but lies and deceit.”

On April 2, President Trump announced a 29 percent tariff on Pakistani goods. Six days later — the same day it hired Seiden Law — Islamabad signed a deal with Orchid Advisors, a lobbying firm, which then subcontracted with the firm Squire Patton Boggs.

The contract with Orchid promised “direct advocacy efforts with the Trump administration regarding tariffs and trade” and to “reset the diplomatic, military and commercial relationship” between the countries.

Squire has employed the president’s former economic adviser Everett Eissenstat, and his former defense secretary, Mark Esper.

Four months after the contract was signed, Mr. Trump cut tariffs on Pakistan to 19 percent — one of the lower rates among major Asia economies — and increased India’s rate to 50 percent, in large part over President Trump’s frustration that it was still buying Russian oil.

In a statement, Squire said it “cannot comment on client engagements without their permission.”

Foreign governments paying American lobbyists to influence public officials is nothing new. Since 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act has compelled Americans working on behalf of foreign governments to register with the Department of Justice and publicly disclose contracts signed with them.

But at the same time that Pakistan was ramping up its campaign, the Trump administration was moving to loosen limits on foreign lobbying.Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi, herself a former lobbyist, disbanded the Justice Department’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which prosecuted cases of influence peddling, and narrowed the enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

India also hired new lobbyists in the spring, and ramped up its efforts in the summer as it was being outspent in Washington by Pakistan.

In April, India inked a deal with SHW Partners LLC, run by the longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller, who worked on all three of the president’s campaigns. That contract promised India “strategic counsel” and help building “government relations,” but does not specify particular areas.

And in August, India hired Mercury Public Affairs, whose partners include Danielle Alvarez, a former senior adviser to Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, and Bryan Lanza, the former communications director for Mr. Trump’s transition team. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, was also formerly employed by the firm as a lobbyist.

The Indian Embassy did not respond to a request to comment.

 
As I said before India will not be able to give those big ticket deals to Trump, so this administration will definitely be pro Pakistan , heck Ny times hasn’t even reported properly on 27th amendment.. Pakistani establishment has spent so much..
 
So the facts are as follows

Pakistan had Trump on thejr side

But then the fantasy we want to believe

Pakistan was winning the may conflict.

Yet their ally wanted the war to stop

And Paksitan agree to stop the war as IWT and Kashmir is resolved while IAF is grounded per @IronShield

Whiel the fact we don't want to believe


India ripped a new one in the defunct PAF airbases
Pak panicked and set up nuclear meeting
Begged to Trump to ask India to stop

India asked USA to beg directly and then stopped hits as India declared on May 6 itself
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the facts are as follows

Pakistan had Trump on thejr side

But then the fantasy we want to believe

Pakistan was winning the may conflict.

Yet their ally wanted the war to stop

And Paksitan agree to stop the war as IWT and Kashmir is resolved while IAF is grounded per @IronShield

Whiel the fact we don't want to believe


India ripped a new one in the defunct PAF airbases
Pak panicked and set up nuclear meeting
Begged to Trump to ask India to stop

India asked USA to beg directly and then stopped hits as India declared on May 6 itself
I have asked this question before but haven’t had an answer. Why did India/Modi stop and agree to a ceasefire? Why not carry on if India was winning and destroying bases? According to Modi himself, the US had no influence on India stopping.
 
I have asked this question before but haven’t had an answer. Why did India/Modi stop and agree to a ceasefire? Why not carry on if India was winning and destroying bases? According to Modi himself, the US had no influence on India stopping.
And this question has been answered in India ..it may not have been covered in pak media .


And I know and respect you for a fact based discussion..so you can pick apart any of my statements here.

India said the perpetrators of the pahalgam attack will be punished. India blamed LET or TRP. They were housed in Paksitan and India attacked them on May 6. Indias statement was our goals are achieved, no intention to prolong the war unless Pakistan attacked.

Whatever happened after that ..and I am going to base these on available evidence not claims.

Assumed India lost one or two jets on may 6.
There was large scale drone attacks on Indian side but no evidence of military assets damaged but civilian casualties were there.

India hit couple of radar sites . And hq9 bases.


Next day India hit 11 airbases

Pak claimed it damaged s400 Brahmos and 26 Indian airbases but have shown 0 damage and Indian PM went to udhanpur airbase with s400 intact behind him.

India said that VP Vance called on India to stop and India said we will stop if Paksitan stops and makes a direct request. When your DGMO called ..ceasefire happened.

Now coming to your question

India neither has the military capability nor the economic capability as well as not a lot of strategic gains in occupying Pakistan or liberating POK. Neither of it was our stated goals. So continuing the war is not useful as there will be losses on both sides.

Let's say India put a precondition of iron clad gaurantees that no terror attack will happen in future. That's not gonna happen either as Pak army will say we don't control them and would require total destruction of Pak army ..

Destruction of Pak military ability completely or hunting down all terrorists or simply asking Pakistan to hand over hafeez saed or dawood could have been other objectives...but Pakistani army and Indian army were both standing...these were strategic hit with symbolic message.

So from our vantage point we see hitting terrorists..this time publicly with visuals, downing air defense radars and hq9 as well as hitting airbases...with negligible military losses on our side...except maybe couple of jets down...so any further continuation of the war would probably suck us in a10 year war which was absolutely not in our interest...

We don't covet Pak land or aim to subjugate Paksitani people ..so what is the point of continuing the conflict ..where we stated we will stop if Paksitan stops attacking.

Hence India stopped fighting...look at Russia or Israel involved in a 3 year war with nothing to show for in the case of Russia. Israel did achieve a clear victory but at a loss of global reputation.
 
And this question has been answered in India ..it may not have been covered in pak media .


And I know and respect you for a fact based discussion..so you can pick apart any of my statements here.

India said the perpetrators of the pahalgam attack will be punished. India blamed LET or TRP. They were housed in Paksitan and India attacked them on May 6. Indias statement was our goals are achieved, no intention to prolong the war unless Pakistan attacked.

Whatever happened after that ..and I am going to base these on available evidence not claims.

Assumed India lost one or two jets on may 6.
There was large scale drone attacks on Indian side but no evidence of military assets damaged but civilian casualties were there.

India hit couple of radar sites . And hq9 bases.


Next day India hit 11 airbases

Pak claimed it damaged s400 Brahmos and 26 Indian airbases but have shown 0 damage and Indian PM went to udhanpur airbase with s400 intact behind him.

India said that VP Vance called on India to stop and India said we will stop if Paksitan stops and makes a direct request. When your DGMO called ..ceasefire happened.

Now coming to your question

India neither has the military capability nor the economic capability as well as not a lot of strategic gains in occupying Pakistan or liberating POK. Neither of it was our stated goals. So continuing the war is not useful as there will be losses on both sides.

Let's say India put a precondition of iron clad gaurantees that no terror attack will happen in future. That's not gonna happen either as Pak army will say we don't control them and would require total destruction of Pak army ..

Destruction of Pak military ability completely or hunting down all terrorists or simply asking Pakistan to hand over hafeez saed or dawood could have been other objectives...but Pakistani army and Indian army were both standing...these were strategic hit with symbolic message.

So from our vantage point we see hitting terrorists..this time publicly with visuals, downing air defense radars and hq9 as well as hitting airbases...with negligible military losses on our side...except maybe couple of jets down...so any further continuation of the war would probably suck us in a10 year war which was absolutely not in our interest...

We don't covet Pak land or aim to subjugate Paksitani people ..so what is the point of continuing the conflict ..where we stated we will stop if Paksitan stops attacking.

Hence India stopped fighting...look at Russia or Israel involved in a 3 year war with nothing to show for in the case of Russia. Israel did achieve a clear victory but at a loss of global reputation.
Also our DGMO stated that. india planned to escalate one level higher always..in the escalation ladder..so it was a question for Paksitan or India to decide if using Ballastic missiles or nuclear weapons are worth it..for all the nuclear threats that come from Paksitan..there are few geographical realities that makes a nuclear war a option of last resort ...no geographic depth and less geographical mass couples with lack of triad.
 
And this question has been answered in India ..it may not have been covered in pak media .


And I know and respect you for a fact based discussion..so you can pick apart any of my statements here.

India said the perpetrators of the pahalgam attack will be punished. India blamed LET or TRP. They were housed in Paksitan and India attacked them on May 6. Indias statement was our goals are achieved, no intention to prolong the war unless Pakistan attacked.

Whatever happened after that ..and I am going to base these on available evidence not claims.

Assumed India lost one or two jets on may 6.
There was large scale drone attacks on Indian side but no evidence of military assets damaged but civilian casualties were there.

India hit couple of radar sites . And hq9 bases.


Next day India hit 11 airbases

Pak claimed it damaged s400 Brahmos and 26 Indian airbases but have shown 0 damage and Indian PM went to udhanpur airbase with s400 intact behind him.

India said that VP Vance called on India to stop and India said we will stop if Paksitan stops and makes a direct request. When your DGMO called ..ceasefire happened.

Now coming to your question

India neither has the military capability nor the economic capability as well as not a lot of strategic gains in occupying Pakistan or liberating POK. Neither of it was our stated goals. So continuing the war is not useful as there will be losses on both sides.

Let's say India put a precondition of iron clad gaurantees that no terror attack will happen in future. That's not gonna happen either as Pak army will say we don't control them and would require total destruction of Pak army ..

Destruction of Pak military ability completely or hunting down all terrorists or simply asking Pakistan to hand over hafeez saed or dawood could have been other objectives...but Pakistani army and Indian army were both standing...these were strategic hit with symbolic message.

So from our vantage point we see hitting terrorists..this time publicly with visuals, downing air defense radars and hq9 as well as hitting airbases...with negligible military losses on our side...except maybe couple of jets down...so any further continuation of the war would probably suck us in a10 year war which was absolutely not in our interest...

We don't covet Pak land or aim to subjugate Paksitani people ..so what is the point of continuing the conflict ..where we stated we will stop if Paksitan stops attacking.

Hence India stopped fighting...look at Russia or Israel involved in a 3 year war with nothing to show for in the case of Russia. Israel did achieve a clear victory but at a loss of global reputation.
I can’t argue with any of this. The only thing I would say is that Pakistan only has I think 2-3 HQ-9 batteries and no many so we are lacking in air defence. The HQ-9 we do have did their job to some extent as there were images of interceptions but I think they must have run out of the interceptors pretty quickly, although intercepting a supersonic terrain hugging cruise missile fired from your SU-30s is not easy.

My other point will be that Pakistan did not make any nuclear threats. Pakistan only convened a meeting for this because of the concern that India was using dual-use missiles.

I agree that getting bogged down in this war would have been detrimental to the whole region just like with Russia/Ukraine.
 
Also our DGMO stated that. india planned to escalate one level higher always..in the escalation ladder..so it was a question for Paksitan or India to decide if using Ballastic missiles or nuclear weapons are worth it..for all the nuclear threats that come from Paksitan..there are few geographical realities that makes a nuclear war a option of last resort ...no geographic depth and less geographical mass couples with lack of triad.
Agree that Pakistan doesn’t have the geographic depth nor a nuclear triad as we don’t have the submarine capability. However, there are more than these factors to consider. India’s urban centres are more populous and agriculture would also be impacted with nuclear fallout starving the whole region and beyond. Also, India has more development than Pakistan so would suffer more impact in those areas.

I don’t really see any point in either countries using nuclear weapons as the aftermath will be devastating. Better to go hungry in my opinion than use them. In fact I’m a strong supporter of getting rid of all nukes across the globe. It could potentially only take 1 launch for the whole world to be destroyed.
 
I have asked this question before but haven’t had an answer. Why did India/Modi stop and agree to a ceasefire? Why not carry on if India was winning and destroying bases? According to Modi himself, the US had no influence on India stopping.

I have answered this question many times, but don't expect to hear it from an Indian.

Hindutva policy is to engage in a constant low level war with Pakistan to keep it economically weak and stop it from growth and development. Yes it will cost India some financially, but they can absorb it, Pakistan can't. India never wants to win a total war with Pakistan because then it would have to reclaim it's Muslim inhabitants as it's own.

Every hindutva policy reflects this, from entertainment, to sport boycotts to business.
 
Pakistan signed a series of high-priced contracts with prominent Washington lobbying firms this spring, just weeks before the White House announced favorable new policies that gave the country one of the world’s more enviable tariff rates and an edge over its archrival, India.

The policy changes heralded a turnabout in Pakistan’s previously rocky relationship with the Trump administration and have largely been attributed to shrewd diplomacy by Islamabad, which has lavished President Trump with the kind of public accolades and big-ticket business deals he relishes.

But the lobbying contracts, which totaled millions of dollars and held out the promises of lower tariffs and access to Mr. Trump, suggest an additional reason for Pakistan’s improved standing: a campaign to influence the president, which included employing some of his closest confidants.

In April and May, as Pakistan ramped up its charm offensive, it spent at least three times as much as India on lobbying in Washington, according to contracts filed with the Department of Justice. As Islamabad rapidly hired lobbyists, including Mr. Trump’s former business partners and bodyguard, its relationship with the United States blossomed and India’s deteriorated.

Many factors may help explain India and Pakistan’s recent divergent trajectories. One is that Pakistan agreed to credit Mr. Trump with ending its military dispute with India in May and to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India refused to do either, arguing that U.S. involvement had nothing to do with the cease-fire. Islamabad also eagerly pitched what became a $500 million mineral extraction agreement and opened its markets to American farm goods.

But the timeline of events and the speedy U.S. warming toward Pakistan also coincides with the lobbying effort.

“You can sort of look at the dots connecting themselves,” said Michael Kugelman, formerly the director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, who added that Pakistan’s lobbying effort was one of several key factors in its turnaround.

“There were lobbyists charged with dealing with the tariff issue, then Pakistan’s tariffs come down,” he added. “There are lobbyists contracted to promote economic cooperation, then you have all this interest from the U.S. in critical minerals and energy.”

Over the course of a turbulent few weeks this spring, as the Trump administration raised tariffs on countries around the world and Pakistan found itself on the brink of war with India, Islamabad entered contracts with six Washington firms for nearly $5 million in eventual retainer fees.

Among the firms Pakistan hired was Seiden Law LLP, which subcontracted Javelin Advisors, a government relations venture. Javelin’s founders include George Sorial, a longtime Trump Organization executive, and Keith Schiller, Mr. Trump’s former bodyguard, who served as director of Oval Office operations during the first Trump administration.

A million-dollar contract signed between Pakistan and Seiden Law on April 8 promised “a mutually agreed upon number of meetings to enhance Pakistani-U.S. leadership level engagements at the White House.”

Another agreement with Javelin was inked on April 24, just two days after militants killed 26 people in a terrorist attack in India-controlled Kashmir, and Pakistan and India found themselves on a path to war.

Just weeks after the contracts were finalized, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, the senior-most leader in Pakistan’s powerful military, arrived in Washington, where he met the Javelin principals.

The following afternoon, June 18, Field Marshal Munir had a private lunch with Mr. Trump at the White House. It was a remarkable meeting: Pakistani Army chiefs had accompanied civilian leaders to presidential meetings, but there is no record of one meeting on his own with a president at the White House.

“We realized we needed to establish a channel at the most senior level,” Mr. Seiden said. Citing attorney-client privilege, he declined to discuss the details of the sit-down with the field marshal, but in a statement his firm said the Pakistanis credited it with its improved fortunes in Washington.

“Many people were instrumental in this that didn’t involve us,” Javelin Advisors said in a statement to The New York Times. “The Pakistani personnel told us we were instrumental in the progress made with the U.S. government.”

An official familiar with the discussions said Javelin approached one of the president’s aides to facilitate a meeting, but the lunch was ultimately organized by the National Security Council.

Pakistani Embassy officials did not respond to requests for comment about efforts to improve their relationship with the White House.

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that Pakistan has been a “vital partner” in countering “radical Islamic terrorism” since the start of the administration. Mr. Trump’s use of tariffs to “end the conflict between India and Pakistan,” she added, “enhanced the president’s positive relationship with Pakistani leaders.”

By the fall, Mr. Trump had called Pakistan’s army chief his “favorite field marshal” and the nation’s support for his Gaza peace plan “incredible.” It was a sharp turn for a country that Mr. Trump had said in his first term offered “nothing but lies and deceit.”

On April 2, President Trump announced a 29 percent tariff on Pakistani goods. Six days later — the same day it hired Seiden Law — Islamabad signed a deal with Orchid Advisors, a lobbying firm, which then subcontracted with the firm Squire Patton Boggs.

The contract with Orchid promised “direct advocacy efforts with the Trump administration regarding tariffs and trade” and to “reset the diplomatic, military and commercial relationship” between the countries.

Squire has employed the president’s former economic adviser Everett Eissenstat, and his former defense secretary, Mark Esper.

Four months after the contract was signed, Mr. Trump cut tariffs on Pakistan to 19 percent — one of the lower rates among major Asia economies — and increased India’s rate to 50 percent, in large part over President Trump’s frustration that it was still buying Russian oil.

In a statement, Squire said it “cannot comment on client engagements without their permission.”

Foreign governments paying American lobbyists to influence public officials is nothing new. Since 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act has compelled Americans working on behalf of foreign governments to register with the Department of Justice and publicly disclose contracts signed with them.

But at the same time that Pakistan was ramping up its campaign, the Trump administration was moving to loosen limits on foreign lobbying.Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi, herself a former lobbyist, disbanded the Justice Department’s Foreign Influence Task Force, which prosecuted cases of influence peddling, and narrowed the enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

India also hired new lobbyists in the spring, and ramped up its efforts in the summer as it was being outspent in Washington by Pakistan.

In April, India inked a deal with SHW Partners LLC, run by the longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller, who worked on all three of the president’s campaigns. That contract promised India “strategic counsel” and help building “government relations,” but does not specify particular areas.

And in August, India hired Mercury Public Affairs, whose partners include Danielle Alvarez, a former senior adviser to Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, and Bryan Lanza, the former communications director for Mr. Trump’s transition team. Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, was also formerly employed by the firm as a lobbyist.

The Indian Embassy did not respond to a request to comment.

Spend millions to stay in power with the help of their Zionist Gods while PKs commit suicide because they cant feed themselves and their families. Epstein the Pedo knew how desperate these criminals are for power and to get it they will take orders.
 
Trump is like a typical materialistic woman.

He can be won over easily with gifts and compliments.
He is the most African or 3rd World leader we have ever seen in the West, only matched by Berlusconi. Generally the West leader are subtlety corrupt like Blair, Biden Sarkozi and Johnson.
 
He is the most African or 3rd World leader we have ever seen in the West, only matched by Berlusconi. Generally the West leader are subtlety corrupt like Blair, Biden Sarkozi and Johnson.
None of these were subtly corrupt but full on. Has there ever been an honest politician? I think Imran came close but he also had his faults.
 
He is the most African or 3rd World leader we have ever seen in the West, only matched by Berlusconi. Generally the West leader are subtlety corrupt like Blair, Biden Sarkozi and Johnson.

Agree.

Trump is a wannabe and a clueless moron. He is bad for world's economy.
 
Yall should see the new releases of how close Trump was to Epstein. Not talking from months ago, talking about more leaked interactions of the two from the other day in addition to whatever Epstein said about IK.

And we have people who literally worship this guy…

I know PK is playing to win, no different than what the Brits and Americans did to get in the good books of Arab countries pre WWI all the way to 1970s before tightening the grip… but hope they know what they’re dealing with.

Sadly they do know what they’re dealing with but don’t care
 
None of these were subtly corrupt but full on. Has there ever been an honest politician? I think Imran came close but he also had his faults.
They were subtly corrupt because they got paid mostly after leaving office. I dont know many politicians that aren't corrupt, it seems they see the trappings of office as their reward. In the UK the Major govt was seen as corrupt but I always felt at the time he himself was financially pretty clean. I felt the same about G Brown.
 
I can’t argue with any of this. The only thing I would say is that Pakistan only has I think 2-3 HQ-9 batteries and no many so we are lacking in air defence. The HQ-9 we do have did their job to some extent as there were images of interceptions but I think they must have run out of the interceptors pretty quickly, although intercepting a supersonic terrain hugging cruise missile fired from your SU-30s is not easy.

My other point will be that Pakistan did not make any nuclear threats. Pakistan only convened a meeting for this because of the concern that India was using dual-use missiles.

I agree that getting bogged down in this war would have been detrimental to the whole region just like with Russia/Ukraine.
Honestly before this conflict I didn't know exactly what air defense Pakistan had ..on our side our drone attacks were not covered..I think some drones were shot down but I don't think Pakistan was using hq9 to intercept drones..probably anti air guns as hq9 is probably used against Brahmos or Ballistic missiles and aircrafts.

During the war...no direct nuclear threat was made.but prior and after ..such threats were made ..and there was enough conjecture to why a meeting would be called..either there was a hit on nuclear assets or it was a bluff or the attack on the air bases required Pak to ensure readiness..these are conjecture at my end..as I have no proof.
 
Honestly before this conflict I didn't know exactly what air defense Pakistan had ..on our side our drone attacks were not covered..I think some drones were shot down but I don't think Pakistan was using hq9 to intercept drones..probably anti air guns as hq9 is probably used against Brahmos or Ballistic missiles and aircrafts.

During the war...no direct nuclear threat was made.but prior and after ..such threats were made ..and there was enough conjecture to why a meeting would be called..either there was a hit on nuclear assets or it was a bluff or the attack on the air bases required Pak to ensure readiness..these are conjecture at my end..as I have no proof.
I don’t know whether they are telling the truth or telling lies but the Pakistani government claimed that they convened a meeting because they got worried about BrahMos since it is a dual use missile.

I was reading news articles and Twitter posts from the Pakistani military on not sharing locations or photos of military personnel during the conflict and that air defense not being used for drones as each interception was costly and only reserved for missiles. There were even some people shooting down drones with shotguns lol.
 
Agree that Pakistan doesn’t have the geographic depth nor a nuclear triad as we don’t have the submarine capability. However, there are more than these factors to consider. India’s urban centres are more populous and agriculture would also be impacted with nuclear fallout starving the whole region and beyond. Also, India has more development than Pakistan so would suffer more impact in those areas.

I don’t really see any point in either countries using nuclear weapons as the aftermath will be devastating. Better to go hungry in my opinion than use them. In fact I’m a strong supporter of getting rid of all nukes across the globe. It could potentially only take 1 launch for the whole world to be destroyed.
Yes no one wins in a fight against nuclear power..just saying geographical depth helps ..but the cost would be terrible not just for India but for the world. The issue is India doesn't threaten to use nukes...Pakistan does.
 
Back
Top