Public sentiment is characterized by skepticism towards US involvement in India-Pakistan relations, with a critical stance towards both Trump and Modi's leadership. Many commenters express pride in India's sovereignty and achievements, alongside concerns about perceived favoritism towards Pakistan by the US. Discussions emphasize nationalism, historical pride, and a desire for independent foreign policy decisions, while frustrations with foreign media bias and geopolitical manipulations are prevalent.

India

Pakistan

United States

India’s “non-aligned policy” has seen many view it as a unreliable partner in the west. Case in point would be its tip toeing of line of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. On the other hand Pakistan has deeply worked with the west at various points in its history. For example the U.S. used Pakistani air bases to launch U2 spy planes to spy on the USSR, it was largely due to Pakistani facilitation that U.S.-Chinese rapprochement took place which completely changed the landscape of the Cold War, there is also obviously the massively important Pakistani role in helping arm the mujahideen against the Soviets in the 80s, and finally Pakistan was very effective in the early years of the war on terror is capturing Al qaeda operatives who had fled across the border from Afghanistan. So there’s a deep history of cooperation there with Pakistan that just isn’t there at all with India and Pakistan has been much more willing to lend the west a hand when asked unlike India. There’s also the fact that the Pakistani military which has essentially run the country since 1958 is massively pro American, so there has always been a pro American force in the Pakistani leadership.

Thats-Slander

India is not interested in the kind of "alliance" American foreign policy people expect

Significant-Luck9987

Confident_Access6498

It's always been about maintaining a balance of power in the region afaik. If India was the inherently weaker nation, I think it would have been the other way around.

vote4boat

Why commit to one side or the other if they don't have to? Especially given that India isn't going to commit either.

GottmanRuleEggs

I’m pretty sure Pakistan has been given up on.

It’s geopolitically relatively recent, since we needed them for Afghanistan, but they’re pretty much buying all their equipment from China for the last several years and relations are kinda crumbling across the board.

Of course, that could swing back the other way; wouldn’t be the first zigzag in the US-Pakistan relationship.

PG908


At geopolitical level:
India practically bankrolls a significant portion of the war in Ukraine by filling the Russian treasury.

Pakistan has supplied weapons to Ukraine.

India has proven to be an ineffective counter weight to China, when it got its airforce humiliated by getting its most advanced planes shot down and being grounded for the majority of the conflict by a smaller Pakistani airforce. 2019 was a dot on the chart, now we have several dots, forming an unmistakable and undeniable trend of inepptitude. Instead if addressing the shortcomings in 2019, India believed its own fake news and propaganda and walked into the lion's den, unprepared and got its face bitten off and then proceeded to troll the entire Internet with denials until the officials had to face up to the reality. 

At general societal level:

West:
Rest of the world also considers India's media and cyber sphere to be extremely toxic, unreliable and biggest source of fake news and that has eroded its good will further, on top of poor civic sense amongst the Indian origin immigrants, huge source of illegal migration and growing sense of frustration of white collar jobs being outsourced.

RoW: Joking, trolling and piling on dead children doesn't help.

Reshaping society into an extreme right wing religious lalaland by an extreme right wing religious govt has further eroded India's intl secular credentials as majority of the Indian population has turned anti-secular.

Democracy and rules: Nobody buys this democracy vs non-democracy stuff anymore. Its culturally not as relevant anymore as it used to be 20 years ago. Nation states only pursue self interest. Its hard to make money for international investors in India and pull that money out due to red tape, rules and Indian tax authorities suddenly deciding xyz owes them millions for following abc rules in the same manner their local competitors implement.

So there are several structural issues, but solvable structural issues should the govt decide to it, but its been a while and we are now seeing indications that some are not going to wait forever for India to get its act together to becoming a meaningful and compliant pawn against China.

Somizulfi

The US doesn't want a strong India either. Supporting Pakistan serves its own interests and helps keep India in check.

veerKg_CSS_Geologist

Pakistan is basically the Turkey of South Asia ,  strategically annoying but too useful to ignore. Honestly, it is better than India from a great power perspective… because it’s weaker,  easier to push around, more dependent, and always ready to play ball (for a price). 

I wouldn’t be surprised if some genius finally gives up on it one day, because just feel  like it   LMAO.

medicsansgarantee

Given India's and Russia's shared history and cooperation, it's unlikely America could fully draw India into its camp. America was ready to bomb India and was murdering Indian nuclear scientists before the USSR stepped up to protect them in 1971.

MonsterkillWow

&gt;India be more interested in aligning

That is not realistic, India has a historic policy of "non-aligment". They were the most important member of the non-aligned countries block during the cold war. They are not showing any signs what so ever of wanting to change their historic position.

MarzipanTop4944

India is not willing to be another "Ukraine" for the U.S. to throw its people into a meat grinder war against China.

India ideally wants a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, if the US gives up on Pakistan, then China's Belt and Road Project will happen a lot faster. 

Right now within Pakistan the ruling elites are divided between Pro China and Pro US factions. 

Pro US factions do everything they can to delay BRI projects in Pakistan whereas Pro China factions attempt to accelerate them.

Losing Pakistan would also lose US drone and surveillance bases near the Iranian border as well. It would also give Iran a direct line to China making oil transfers to China a lot easier.

StepAsideJunior

The OP is forgetting that Pakistan shares a 300 mile border with Iran, which the US has been opposed to since 1979. That proximity alone maintains American interests in Pakistan.

Given Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its role in nuclear proliferation (how North Korea got the bomb), it comes down to LBJ’s maxim that it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

WhoNotU

I see a few reasons:

* There is a lot of work required to turn India into a complete enemy of China and a reliable ally of the USA. India benefits from its ambiguous position with Russia, China, and the USA. This allows it a wide range of diplomatic and economic moves that it would lose by aligning fully with one side. I think US diplomacy understands that and doesn't believe it's worth the trouble to try turning India into a US-aligned country.
* Pakistan has an unreliable but essential intelligence service for countering Islamist terrorism. Cutting ties with them would make the fight against global Islamist groups operating in Pakistan even more difficult than it already is.
* Pakistan joining an Iranian axis would be a significant threat to US interests in the region.
* Unlike Russia, China is not a threat to most of the Asian continent (aside from a few places like Taiwan or maybe South Korea). So there is no need to create an anti-China alliance like NATO in Europe. China is more often seen as a competitor than a threat to US interests. However, with Trump and the ongoing militarization of China, that could change in the future.
* I don't think USA is really concerned about India becoming too powerful, and there is no scenario where Pakistan get submitted by India (that would just turn the entire region in a warzone for decades).

Separate-Courage9235

U.S.-Pakistani relations have certainly cooled but there’s clearly some ties left after forging a nearly six decade long alliance 

It also helps to have your foot in the door in the event of a collapse of the Pakistani government. Hundreds of nuclear warheads in one of the most mountainous regions in the world is something I’d want contacts in a military apparatus for

elykl12

Then Pakistan falls directly into the hands of China. Hell the whole reason IK was removed was due to US pressure over Pakistan/IK trying to develop relations with Russia.

FederalSandwich1854

It’s simple a broken collapsing Islamic state with nukes is way scarier to the world order then a crazy corrupt half functioning atomic Islamic military autocracy

ExampleNo2489

Trick-Expression-727

A foreign analyst once said there are three governments inside Pakistan . The civilian government which is usually very friendly with the United States. The military regime which is more nationalist anti India but a reliable partner for the U.S. The only issue with the military establishment with Pakistan is they do destroy democratic institutions and the stability of the country. Military coups inside a nuclear state is not the best combination in the world.

Lastly the ISI intelligence community which has often helped the Taliban and Al-Qaeda . The ISI is most guilty of betraying the U.S the most to the point where the ISI was often tipping off the Afghan Taliban whenever America shared info about potential airstrikes in Afghanistan.

We should be friendly with the civilian government and cautiously friendly with the military but extremely hostile to the ISI.

I also recommend reading , Directorate S by Steve Coll.

combrade

In case China and India would do business that would benefit both sides

Dragon2906

China is already a handful for the US to deal with. Imagine there's another China. Do you think the Indians would bow down to the US when they get strong and powerful themselves?

No-Satisfaction-275

Cause US has realized India is not only untrustworthy but also militarily weak and cannot compete with China at any level so the need to pick sides has gone down relatively fast

moongroup

The US would benefit more from war in this region than anywhere else on earth. A war involving India, Pakistan, and China would consume military resources at such a high rate that all three would be weakened terribly.

ExcellentWinner7542

Isn't Pakistan more aligned with China than USA? Didn't they give the military equipments of USA to China for reverse engineering?

Confident-Ask-2043

IvanThePohBear

The US continues to prop them up because of the fear of a broke country selling their wmds or otherwise doing something heinous with them.

It's the real concern with the UK as well, beyond just seeing a long time and stalwart ally being destroyed from within by choice.

India doesn't really factor in as much as they would like to think, in almost all matters.

Goaterush

uncannyfjord

Because the USA wants to use India to reach its goals and for manufacturing, but at the same time not let India grow too big so that it can challenge usd and military authority 

Kind_Tangerine_8213

If Pakistan collapses, who gets the nuclear weapons?

nash3101

pakistanis are employed to do this whole day ... running narratives in the comment sections

[deleted]

The West  especially the U.S.  doesn’t stop India from acting against Pakistan out of concern for Pakistan. They do it because they *need* India stable. If India gets dragged into a full-scale war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan, it could suffer major damage — economically, militarily, and politically. That weakens India and removes a key counterweight to China in the region.

It’s not about fairness; it’s about balance of power. The West wants India strong *enough* to check China, but not so aggressive that it destabilizes South Asia. If India gets wrecked, China gets a free hand. So, the West pressures India into restraint not because they’re “against” India, but because they’re playing long-term chess.

Plastic-Glove-6224

Containing China has been ineffective for decades. It is recommended to do more of your own things. The foundation of a country lies in its internal affairs. Indians may debate less and do more practical things, even if it is just picking up garbage, which is also a contribution.

SmoothBaseball677

India like China, is a potential for a superpower. The US will not allow India to rise because India interests will always be for india.

Just like siding with some Indo Pacific countries is important to contain china, siding with Pakistan is important to contain India

Ancher123

India isn’t going to bow down to the USA so not an ally, but not a foe. As it should be. Pakistan is a weak state that can be manipulated.

Smart_Spinach_1538

Have you considered that India is the country that might need countering?

Would Saudi Arabia remain friendly to the West if it occupied Iraq and Iran?

machinationstudio

It was neutral in the last dispute btw India and Pakistan and has largely allied with India against China.

If you want to ask why the US dosen’t cut off Pakistan completely, it’s likely due to a mixture of liking Modi only slightly more and foreign policy inertia.

spinosaurs70

India’s untrustworthy. They’re basically the kid who will start shit and then run to their bigger friend for protection. While they need the protection, they will suck up to whomever provides it but won’t hesitate to stab them in the back.

RoutineTry1943

there are two gov in USA ONE IS PENTAGON ( PRESIDENT ) AND ONE IS CIA 

CIA USE PAKISTAN FOR RUSSIA ,INDIA, AND CHINA SO THAT THEY CAN  BE AGGRESSIVE ON ANY OF THEM ANYTIME .

CIA HAS ITS NUCLEAR TESTINGS IN PAKISTAN TOO AND AS WE KNOW THE WHOLE NUR KHAN BASE IS OWNED BY CIA  NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI IS ALLOWED THERE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

AND CONTAINING CHINA IS NOT EASY BECAUSE CHINA IS INTERVINED IN GLOBAL TRADES AND GLOBALISATION.

Abject-Astronomer761

India is untrustworthy and does not stick to its word. Pakistan does

puppiesandrainbows1

Oddly enough, both India and Pakistan, have a common adversary in the PRC. 

It's militantly atheist and continually expanding it's territory.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Even if it's borders.

Right-Influence617



🔗 **Bypass paywalls**:

* [www.theguardian.com](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&amp;url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/thawing-of-relations-between-pakistan-and-us-raises-eyebrows-in-india)

📣 **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1lfj0mm/thawing_of_relations_between_pakistan_and_us/myoh6e1/)**:
&gt; SS: In this detailed piece for *The Guardian*, Hannah Ellis-Petersen reports on a sudden and dramatic thaw in US–Pakistan relations, marked by Donald Trump’s warm reception of Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. This newfound camaraderie, which included a rare White House lunch and praise from top US military officials, has triggered unease in India, where officials view it as a troubling departure from Washington’s usual tilt toward New Delhi. Trump’s exaggerated claims of brokering peace in a past India–Pakistan conflict, and Munir’s flattering gesture of proposing Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, have also added fuel to Indian concerns, especially given Pakistan’s track record on terrorism. 
&gt;
&gt;While some analysts interpret the US’s embrace of Munir as driven by strategic interests such as counterterrorism, crypto, and critical minerals, others suggest Trump’s personal affinity for military strongmen is a key factor. Amid rising tensions in the Middle East, speculation has also emerged that the US may be exploring whether Pakistan could act as a diplomatic conduit with Iran, although public opinion in Pakistan remains staunchly pro-Tehran. Despite past denunciations of Pakistan as deceitful or dangerous, US officials now tout it as a valuable counterterrorism partner, a shift that many in India see as both strategic opportunism and historical déjà vu. 

**📜 Community Reminder**: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.



**📰 Media Bias fact Check Rating :**  The Guardian – Bias and Credibility 




|Metric|Rating|
|:-|:-|
|Bias Rating|left-center|
|Factual Rating| mixed|
|Credibility Rating|medium credibility|

This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see The Guardian – Bias and Credibility's review 
[here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/).
***

❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).

GeoIndModBot

The fact that Pakistan is seen as equals to India by US President implies a policy failure on our part. 

Now there are two kind of people- One who will blame inherent American bias towards Pakistan and others who will cite reasons like crypto, transactional,Iran to explain the situation. I believe India had all the time in the world to bolster relations with US and bring them to our side, but we failed miserably. There is no point crying over spilt milk now.

AIM-120-AMRAAM

Good luck with India trusting the US again!

theWireFan1983

In all this hullabaloo, what is more fascinating to me is the wide acceptance of Asim Munir as the head of the state, in many ways. Trump thinks it's ok to have a lunch with the military chief of a sovereign country. Shahbaz Sharif thinks it's ok for the civilian leadership to absent while meeting "leader of the free world". 

When Musharraf did a coup against the civilian government, this would have been understandable because legal or illegal, he was the head of the state. Today that is not the case. The civilian government governs at the behest of the army but there's still a civilian government in Pakistan. This is a tacit acceptance that whatever deal Trump and Munir make would be acceptable to Pakistani state.

nishitd

SS: In this detailed piece for *The Guardian*, Hannah Ellis-Petersen reports on a sudden and dramatic thaw in US–Pakistan relations, marked by Donald Trump’s warm reception of Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. This newfound camaraderie, which included a rare White House lunch and praise from top US military officials, has triggered unease in India, where officials view it as a troubling departure from Washington’s usual tilt toward New Delhi. Trump’s exaggerated claims of brokering peace in a past India–Pakistan conflict, and Munir’s flattering gesture of proposing Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, have also added fuel to Indian concerns, especially given Pakistan’s track record on terrorism. 

While some analysts interpret the US’s embrace of Munir as driven by strategic interests such as counterterrorism, crypto, and critical minerals, others suggest Trump’s personal affinity for military strongmen is a key factor. Amid rising tensions in the Middle East, speculation has also emerged that the US may be exploring whether Pakistan could act as a diplomatic conduit with Iran, although public opinion in Pakistan remains staunchly pro-Tehran. Despite past denunciations of Pakistan as deceitful or dangerous, US officials now tout it as a valuable counterterrorism partner, a shift that many in India see as both strategic opportunism and historical déjà vu.

telephonecompany

Dogaseven70

As I said earlier that the trade deal is not happening and this is more than just a strategic shift. I would not be surprised if they try to pull an Iran on us. Yanks remain as disgusting as they were during the cold war.

We should prepare for the 26% tariffs. And IT department should raid the Lodhas and shut down Trump towers.

Choice_Ad2121

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

India is a closer ally to us currently than Pakistan

maybe in the Cold War things were different but that’s irrelevant now

we will generally take India’s side yet limit any involvement

ecstaticbirch

Pakistan has repeatedly shown themselves to be a terrible ally, and is a hotbed of terrorist activity.  I'm not a fan of Modi but I'm even less a fan of Pakistan.

As far as the US is concerned I think it's a tough call.  I'm not a non-interventionist, but I also don't think we should be rubbing our noses in every turd we find.  We should be pushing for a peace deal because it's in everyone's best interest not to let two nuclear powers duke it out until they get bored, but we shouldn't engage with the war in any military or economic capacity.  This really isn't our fight.

SeraphLance

More sympathetic to India (partly since they aren’t a failed state) but the west should attempt to not let the conflict escalate

fartyunicorns

I don't particularly like either of them, state sponsored Islamist terrorism vs. nationalist populists of the most batshit insane, historical revisionist strain I have ever seen (and that's saying something for nationalists) who suppress the self-determination of Punjab and Kashmir. Let them blow each other up.

Arcaeca2

Alliances are tools, not friendships.

US being more friendly with India is fine by me, Pakistan harbors a lot of terrorists in its nation. If you let that simmer long enough it will boil over eventually into the neighboring countries. Afghanistan had a lot of pakistani terrorism influencing it with many young fighters coming from the border.

The idea that Ukraine and Pakistan are like allies in the sense that for example the UK is a our ally durring world war II is silly. They are low commitment trade partners at best, who occasionally send troops for very minor things that are largely irrelevant and used only for a gesture of good will.

Fragrant_Edge_5061

When it comes to two nuclear armed countries fighting its better to stay neutral hopefully this conflict doesn't escalate to the use of nukes and peace happens.

Massive-Ad409

Neither is going to launch nukes over this. Pakistan maintains a First Use doctrine because India is substantially larger and has a lot more friends. It's meant as deterrence, akin to Madman (Not MAD) theory. 

India has no incentive to launch first which is why they maintain NFU because it is politically more advantageous to appear rational.

But neither truly want an all out escalation. Especially right now.

muchnycrunchny

Rumor:

Pakistan is close with China and BRICS. The US is replacing Chinese Manufacturing with Indian. Pakistan is attacking India as a proxy war in the trade disputes with China and America.

SnooFloofs1778

It's only a matter of time, but for their sakes, i hope it doesn't escalate.

soulwind42

prowler28

The broken windows theory states that visible signs of disorder and misbehavior in an environment encourage further disorder and misbehavior, leading to serious crimes. In world view, Trump causing unrest and disorder on world stage will cause misbehavior.

WillingnessClean7047

I don’t know much about the situation but I just pray that we as American taxpayers have the privilege to pay for it.

tnic73

Maybe I'll finally stop getting spam calls.

Inumnient

The USSR doesn't exist any more, India isn't socialist any more, India is a US ally, and the war is over.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/10/asia/india-pakistan-ceasefire-explainer-latam-intl

Gaxxz

How is Pakistan an ally on paper? There is no formal treaty. Please explain your statement.

boisefun8

I forget the name of the philosopher who said it (French Revolution era?) but "War is politics carried out by other means." 

There's clearly an irreconcilable difference between the two countries. My understanding of it is very limited, all I know about is their claims over the region of Kashmir, but I'm sure there's far more to it than that. Whatever the reasons for the conflict may be, the math is the same: Is this fight worth people losing lives over? For 99.9% of all the worlds grievances, the answer is a decided no. But in that very slim selection of cases, the answer is unfortunately yes. 

All that to say, I don't know nearly enough about what is going on and what has happened between Pakistan and India to even begin to weigh in on how to resolve that problem. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that two rational people in charge of both countries could come to a lasting peaceful solution. But that's not the world we live in.

Rough_Class8945

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are [currently under a moratorium](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1h0qtpb/an_update_on_wednesday_posting_rules/), and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The problem is the united states has enjoyed close relationships with both nations.if we pick a side we risk alienating the other. 

Yes, the cost of war is human life, but from a calculating perspective, those aren't  our lives. It's best for us to write them off and remain uninvolved for the sake of arms deals with Pakistan, trade with India, and those lucrative post-war reconstruction contracts.

War sucks, but we're human. It's inevitable. All you can reasonably do is try to get harmed the least, and profit as much as possible. War is always a numbers game.

Fantastic-Pear-2395

Um the US isn't a big fan of terrorist Pakistan

AZULDEFILER

Step 1: Stay out of it

Step 2: Repeat Step 1

I don't think we should intervene at all. This spat between India and Pakistan does not concern us.

RamblinRover99

Let them solve their own problem. We join, Russia joins, Iran joins.....

Dry_Archer_7959

We need to intervene diplomatically to convince both nations to stand down. Other than that, I have a hard time believing neither India (who would in a conventional war absolutely destroy Pakistan) nor Pakistan want to escalate this to nuclear level. 

Nothing about this has to do with NATO, since that requires an attack on a NATO member state in North America, the North Atlantic, or Europe.

neovb

We need to stop involving ourselves on forever conflicts

Laniekea

We should stay out of it, neither India nor Pakistan are NEAR any NATO Countries

ChicagoCubsRL97

We don't need to get involved. However, if one of them seeks the USA to mediate between the two countries, I think that's fine.

Kanosi1980

India is a giant compared to Pakistan. Population, area and economy. In an all-out war, India can destroy Pakistan with ease. Pakistan has toyed with India by nurturing Muslim extremists enough. I don't blame India for being a bit irritated.

MedvedTrader

You are massively over worrying about this.

Fignons_missing_8sec

That’s not our problem, because those two countries are not NATO members, and if we got involved in Pakistan and India, we would likely involve China in the whole mess because they have a disputed claim to the Jammu and Kashmir area known as Aksai Chin. 

So no, it’s too damn risky to involve ourselves in there.

IntroductionAny3929

No, this is a very different situation than either of the other two geopolitical conflicts we are currently aiding. This seems to be a situation that should de-escalate as the initial attack wasn’t state sanctioned. This has a lot of similarities to Iran and Israel in the sense that neither wants to actually cross the line, but both will always push it.

StixUSA

They don't border Israel so the US won't take a stand in any way.

TopRedacted



🔗 **Bypass paywalls**:

* [www.reddit.com](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&amp;url=https://www.reddit.com/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1klg8z8/why_does_us_in_particular_and_west_in_general/)

 

**📜 Community Reminder**: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.

❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).

Maybe cuz India acted as a fence sitter in Russia Ukraine issue?

Temporary_Editor958

About the IMF loan: India which earlier said that they'll oppose the loan ended up abstaining. This clearly shows there was some negotiation about the loan, i.e., the loan was used as a leverage within the backdoor deal that we all know has passed.

IMO the biggest proof that Pakistan was on the absolute backfoot was that within the ceasefire, they could have restored status quo within the IWT but failed. We crossed *the* biggest red line they had and all they did was deploy forces across the border, which are now being called back as we speak, probably at Pakistan's request as both KPK and Balochistan erupted the moment there was pressure on their eastern front.

In other words, I believe the loan was passed with Indian support. In return, Pakistan drops their demand to restore the IWT. Obviously Pakistan is the big loser in this- they would've gotten the loan anyway, now they have the loan but their biggest cities were bombed (I'll be damned if this doesn't cause atleast some capital flight, which they can barely afford), and they lose their food and water security. This will worsen their control over Sindh, as Sindh faces water scarcity over Punjab's disproportionate water usage. As water resources dwindle, Sindh will be affected far more than Punjab.

 The next few years for Pakistan will be an economic hell. 

Don't care about the other commenter messaging about Pakistani defence orders. They're teensy in comparison to Indian support and defense orders (P-8i, Apache, our support to Israel is absolutely critical for the country, Globemasters)

DickBlaster619

moon_burger

In my opinion, it is clear that the Pahalgam attack was a planned move to create unrest between India and Pakistan—possibly orchestrated by the USA or China-Pakistan nexus—due to the ongoing trade war between China and the USA. A viral clip from a Pakistani official suggests that Asim Munir planned the attack for personal interests. As we all know, the USA has been accused of indirectly funding terrorism, and China openly supports Pakistan. So, it seems likely that either the USA or China was involved.

Recently, ThePrint India published an article revealing that since June, satellite images of the Pahalgam stalemate were being purchased by a Pakistani company, whose founder is a US-sanctioned criminal. In retaliation, India has started to dominate Chinese and American military equipment markets by relying on its indigenous defense systems and Russian military products.

In my view, the Western and Pakistani media are spreading lies and propaganda about Indian aircraft losses and other damages. If the truth came out—that India successfully destroyed their aircraft, airbases, and drones—the demand for US and Chinese military gadgets would decline, which neither of those countries wants.

After all of this, the US suddenly announced a trade agreement with China. Some reports even suggest that India struck a Pakistani nuclear site, causing panic in both Pakistan and the USA, which may have led them to propose a ceasefire with India.

YellowlovesBrown

The IMF vote was payback for India refusing to part ways with Russia in favor of Ukraine. Ironically, it looks like Russia voted in favour of Pak too. India was the only abstention. Most of them win if ground war continues because they get more military contracts.

It’s important to understand that SEA gets very little importance from US/ UK/ EU anyway except when we’re defence or trade customers. India-Pak issues are seen as domestic conflicts much as JD Vance said originally. They just keep funding Pak in the hopes that the government stays in power because a failed factional state with nukes is the worst outcome imaginable.

Godi media hasn’t helped things by being ill-informed, belligerent chest thumpers that no one outside our country takes seriously. Worse, people dismiss Indian news outlets entirely now.

Increasingly, thanks to social media, people lack historical context. I had a long conversation where an American absolutely jumped down my throat for being a nationalist (apparently all Indians are) and said we had continued supporting Pak by not suspending IWT(!) 

Others less nonsensical say it’s a self-inflicted issue for India. Ukrainians and EU people hate us because we are seen as cozy with Russians. I don’t know why they don’t blame US or China as much. Saudis have been allies with Pak. Hamas/ Palestine too. Chinese and Pakistani have a very significant social presence and were actively waging an informational warfare that we lost. 

So yeah, we’re pretty isolated diplomatically.

Prottusha1

https://www.youtube.com/live/sR6TGjp3Tu0?si=hJCUHmfgg10P5Ma9

Video that must be used as frame of reference by both India and  Pakistan

Pakistan was meant to be a military outpost to the Brits (Anglo Saxon clan) to check the Soviets (The Great Game)

The USA has been the leader of the pack since the Suez crisis. Over time, USA Has massively benefited during the Soviet invasion (Mujahideen phase) and recently Afghanistan where Pak actively created the Taliban cells + as a access route/logistics hub as there is alnd route from the Arabian sea. 

India's turn to Soviets was due to this + had to be done during the 71 war when the Americans and British sent their fleets  (in support of Pak) over to the Indian Ocean.  

All this coupled with IMF bailouts and their liberal media using the talking points which have anti India (and not so anti Pak) biases.

It's just recently (post 2008 nuclear deal) is when India has started to pivot to the USA due to the China factor and also diversity weapon supplies from the Russians. 

And it's all the game the great powers play - use a counterweight to each small/regional power to keep them in check. India's counterweight is Pak, China's counterweight is India (and other countries - Japan,  Philippines)

AncientDebris

Dear OP, let us look at certain known behavioural and historical facts.

In international politics leadership is based on economic and military superiority. Once a nation tastes leadership status it is addicted to it. All efforts are made by such nations to maintain status quo. These efforts could be as direct as military interventions or regime change operations or indirect as insurgency support and instability generation in geographical areas considered as likely threats. The aim being to delay or deny higher power status to aspirants. 

Geographically, the only country, other than the established powers, that has the geopolitical largesse (demography, size, resource, location etc) to rise to the forefront of international politics is India. So, in the list of aspirants, India stands in front. Obviously, there would be effort to deny or delay this rise as much as possible.

The most important natural faultline in this region is the creation of the state of Pakistan on religious basis. This was done by UK and its allies with the intention to keep this area divided with deep set and irreconcilable differences based on religion. Since 1948, these differences have led to major armed confrontations in the area. The inability of Indian leadership to create a value factor in the two important fields of economics and military, since then, made us an easy country to manipulate. In the absence of direct manipulation due Cold War realities, Pakistan was the proxy that was used to tweak us. Post Cold War, Pakistan was used to check India's rise through Kashmir and later, through religious radicalisation and terrorism. 

Nuclearisation of Pakistan was a master stroke, 'allowed' by the US only to keep India, Iran + West Asia in check. It also made the equation, India=Pakistan (militarily) viable. Iran and its moneyed allies came into the sway of the Islamic Bomb in Pakistan and it slowed their own independent growth towards this dream. Ofc, US understood the danger of the game it was playing, but it seems it just did not care. China came late into the game, understood the importance of Pakistan to US intentions and set about changing the rules. India's rise was slow and with lack of character, vision and political leadership, we did not do much to change the situation. This would have continued indefinitely but for the rise of Narendra Modi as the PM in 2014.

This is the short sweet summary of how I look at the events unfolding in this region geopolitically and culminating with Op Sindoor. The last ten years have been seminal for the nation and there is no looking back. Pakistan's nuclear bluff has been called. Things have changed in this region now. The relationship between this three plus one (USA, China, India and + Russia) is not very clear now but will be very soon.

AbhayOye

Its geography - Pakistan borders Iran and Afghanistan who are not friendly to the US. Even when Soviets were in Afghanistan, they used Pakistan as a proxy to get weapons into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. This is a deep alliance which stretches back to those Cold War years, when Pakistan aligned themselves to US because they did not like Soviets on their border.

When the US was in Afghanistan in 2000s, they used to get supplies through Pakistan, and had or still have CIA black sites there. 

Stability in Pakistan is important for them as part of their larger Middle East strategy. 

India has only recently come into their view as a strategic ally due to the rise of China. But they still have doubts about our ability to actually stand up to China and so don’t want to commit fully to us.

Melodic_Inside

India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar refuted claims of US intervention in mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, stating diplomatic decisions were made independently.

India-Pakistan Relations and US Involvement

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want