The India Pakistan military standoff, triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam attack, ended with a US-mediated ceasefire on May 10. Both nations now claim victory, but experts suggest strategic ambiguity rather than a clear upper hand.
India Pakistan military standoff escalated after India blamed Pakistan for the Kashmir attack. Though Islamabad denied involvement, tensions quickly turned military. On May 7, India launched missiles into Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Punjab. In response, Pakistan struck Indian bases across the border.
Drone and missile exchanges continued until May 10, when U.S. President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire. India claims the truce was bilateral, while Pakistan credited Washington’s mediation. Both sides held pressers showcasing alleged achievements.
Analysts argue that Pakistan succeeded in internationalising the Kashmir issue. Trump even offered to mediate, breaking with India’s long-standing refusal of third-party involvement. Islamabad’s narrative gained traction, emphasizing the need for global engagement.
India, however, used the standoff to shift global focus to Pakistan-based armed groups. Experts say India achieved deeper strikes into Punjab, showcasing military reach not seen since the 1971 war. Hitting Lahore and Karachi with drones marked a notable advancement.
Pakistan claims to have downed Indian jets, confirmed by French and U.S. sources. Analysts see this as symbolic, not strategic. The presence of debris in Indian-administered Kashmir further complicates attribution.
Military officials from both nations agreed to reduce border troop presence. However, Indian PM Modi warned that the ceasefire was merely a “pause.”
Experts caution that sustained peace hinges on curbing support for separatist groups. Any future clash may inflict high civilian costs without yielding strategic rewards.
