Why did India strike Pakistan? All we know about Operation Sindoor

Escalation Gone Meta: Strategic Lessons from the 2025 India-Pakistan Crisis

Operation Sindoor:' Pakistan and India are blaming each other as their Kashmir conflict spirals

China has spent billions developing military tech. Conflict between India and Pakistan could be its first major test

U.S. Intelligence on South Asian Conflict Scenarios

Bottom Line Up Front:<ul><li>The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis introduced dangerous new warfare dimensions and compressed escalation timelines in a nuclear-armed region.</li><li>China's military technology faced its first major battlefield test through Pakistani proxies, altering regional power dynamics.</li><li>The conflict established a more volatile baseline, increasing risks of rapid escalation and miscalculation in future crises.</li><li>Enhanced international crisis management and addressing root causes like Kashmir are urgently needed to prevent catastrophic escalation.</li></ul>The recent India-Pakistan crisis of May 2025 represents a critical inflection point in South Asian security dynamics. On 22 April 2025, a terrorist attack at Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in the Anantnag district of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir killed at least 26 tourists and injured more than 20 others. This massacre triggered the most serious military confrontation between the nuclear-armed neighbors in decades. On 7 May 2025, India announced that it had launched missile and air strikes, codenamed Operation Sindoor, targeting nine sites across Pakistani-administered Azad Kashmir and Pakistan's Punjab province (Al Jazeera, 2025). The conflict escalated rapidly, with Indian drones hitting major Pakistani cities and military installations over four days of intense fighting.What makes this crisis particularly concerning is not just its intensity, but the introduction of new warfare dimensions that fundamentally alter the regional security landscape. Four days of fighting in May marked the first time New Delhi and Islamabad utilized unmanned aerial vehicles at scale against each other. This development signals a new phase in Indo-Pakistani conflict dynamics, where technological advancements lower the threshold for sustained military engagement while potentially increasing the risk of miscalculation.The geopolitical implications extend far beyond the immediate participants. China's role as Pakistan's primary arms supplier came under intense scrutiny during the conflict, with China gleaning data from its fighter jets and other weapons used in action by Pakistan. This represents the first major real-world test of Chinese military technology in a high-intensity conventional conflict, providing Beijing with invaluable intelligence about its weapons systems' performance against Western-supplied Indian equipment. China's exported arsenal faced a real-world test in South Asia and may have fallen short, though definitive assessments remain classified.The crisis also highlighted the fragmented nature of international crisis management in South Asia. Efforts to mediate the India-Pakistan conflict are not going to work "unless the U.S. steps in with full sincerity," Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, told NPR. However, American influence in the region has waned as China's strategic partnerships have deepened, creating a more complex diplomatic environment for conflict resolution.The economic dimensions of the crisis cannot be overlooked. Stock markets across South Asia experienced severe volatility during the conflict, demonstrating the region's economic vulnerability to military escalation. The rapid rebound following the ceasefire agreement on May 12 indicated market confidence in the temporary nature of the confrontation, but also revealed the potential for significant economic disruption should future conflicts prove more protracted.Perhaps most troubling is the establishment of what experts term a "dangerous baseline" for future conflicts. Future conflicts will likely erupt faster and escalate more intensely. The May crisis demonstrated that both nations now possess the capability and willingness to conduct sustained military operations across multiple domains simultaneously, including conventional strikes, and information operations (Belfer Center, 2025). This creates a compressed escalation timeline that increases the risk of rapid escalation to nuclear thresholds.Scenario Analysis: Three Trajectories for Future EscalationScenario 1: Controlled Escalation: Future crises follow the May 2025 pattern with limited objectives, brief duration (3-7 days), and international pressure leading to rapid de-escalation. This scenario assumes continued nuclear deterrence effectiveness and maintains current crisis management mechanisms. Key indicators include: restraint in targeting civilian infrastructure, rapid international diplomatic intervention, and both sides demonstrating clear off-ramps during conflicts.Scenario 2: Extended Conventional Conflict: A future incident triggers a more sustained conventional conflict lasting 2-4 weeks, potentially spreading beyond Kashmir to multiple fronts. This scenario involves intensified drone warfare, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, and regional powers drawn into supporting roles. Economic disruption becomes severe, potentially triggering broader South Asian instability. The risk of nuclear escalation increases significantly after the first week of sustained fighting.Scenario 3: Rapid Nuclear Escalation: A combination of miscalculation, technological failure, or deliberate escalation leads to tactical nuclear weapon use within 48-72 hours of conflict initiation. This scenario could result from targeting of strategic assets, breakdown of command and control systems, or third-party intervention. The consequences would be catastrophic, potentially triggering broader regional conflict and global economic crisis.The China-Pakistan strategic partnership represents the most significant shift in regional power dynamics. After a four-day standoff with India, Pakistan looks to its trusted partner China for post-conflict support. Beijing's deepening military relationship with Islamabad serves dual purposes: containing Indian regional influence while testing Chinese military technology against Western systems. This dynamic transforms Pakistan from a regional actor into a proxy for broader Sino-Indian strategic competition.India's response strategy increasingly focuses on technological superiority and strategic autonomy. New Delhi's ability to conduct precision strikes demonstrated improved intelligence and targeting capabilities, but also revealed vulnerabilities in sustained operations against Chinese-supplied systems. The conflict accelerated India's defense modernization priorities, particularly in drone technology and missile defense systems.The broader implications for regional stability are profound. Traditional conflict management mechanisms proved inadequate for the new warfare domains introduced in May 2025. The international community's response was fragmented, with no single power capable of exercising decisive mediation authority. This vacuum creates space for future escalation cycles with potentially diminished external constraints.To address the elevated risk environment, several critical policy measures require immediate implementation. Enhanced crisis communication mechanisms must be established between military commands, including direct hotlines at tactical levels and automated de-escalation protocols. The existing Director General Military Operations (DGMO) hotline proved insufficient for managing multi-domain conflicts and requires substantial upgrades. International engagement must shift from reactive crisis management to proactive stability building. This includes establishing a multilateral South Asian Crisis Prevention Group with permanent representation from major powers, implementing confidence-building measures for emerging warfare domains (cyber, drone, space), and creating economic incentives for sustained peace through regional trade integration. Most critically, the underlying drivers of conflict require sustained attention. The Kashmir dispute remains the primary flashpoint, but demographic changes, water scarcity, and climate-induced migration are creating new sources of tension. Addressing these root causes through multilateral frameworks offers the only long-term solution to breaking the escalation cycle.The international community must also reckon with the new reality of Chinese military technology proliferation. The May conflict demonstrated that regional conflicts now serve as testing grounds for great power military systems, adding layers of complexity to crisis management. This crisis serves as a warning of the evolving nature of conflict in the nuclear age. The introduction of new warfare domains, compressed escalation timelines, and great power proxy dynamics creates an unprecedented risk environment in South Asia. Without decisive action to establish new crisis management mechanisms and address underlying tensions, the region faces an increasingly dangerous trajectory toward more frequent and potentially catastrophic conflicts.The next 18-24 months will be critical for determining whether the international community can adapt its conflict prevention tools to address these new realities. The stakes could not be higher: failure to do so risks not only regional catastrophe but potentially global nuclear escalation in one of the world's most strategically important regions.

The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis introduced dangerous new warfare dimensions and compressed escalation timelines in a nuclear-armed region.

Leena Elbouatmani

India-Pakistan Conflict Trajectory: Scenarios for Escalation and Regional Fallout

Black Carbon in the Arctic: The underestimated role of gas flaring and residential combustion emissions

Biden limits oil drilling across 13 million acres of Alaskan Arctic

Pollution in the Arctic: Oil and Gas Extraction on the Continental Shelf as a Major Contributor.

China ' s Polar Silk Road: Implications for the Arctic Region

China Increasing Interest in Strategic Arctic Region > U.S. Department of Defense

<ul><li>U.S. Arctic oil exploration is at a crossroads, with rising geopolitical competition, environmental concerns, and evolving energy policies.</li><li>The Arctic holds significant oil and gas reserves vital for U.S. energy independence, but inaction risks ceding influence to Russia and China.</li><li>Failing to develop these resources strategically could weaken the U.S.'s geopolitical standing and forgo opportunities to enhance energy security.</li><li>To remain competitive, the U.S. must prioritize sustainable exploration and strengthen multilateral Arctic cooperation, balancing economic and environmental priorities.</li></ul>Global climate change is reshaping the Arctic more drastically than any other region, with temperatures rising up to seven times faster than mid-latitudes. This warming trend, while alarming to environmentalists and Indigenous communities, has unlocked important opportunities for oil and gas exploration. The melting of glaciers and sea ice has exposed new fields containing an estimated 5.3% of global proven oil reserves and 21.7% of natural gas reserves (Borshchevskaia et al.). Additionally, longer ice-free periods have reduced exploration and production costs, further incentivizing activity in this region.However, the consequences of Arctic offshore drilling extend far beyond economic gains. Gas flaring, a common byproduct of oil extraction, has already contributed to 42% of the Arctic's black carbon surface concentrations – far exceeding the global average of 3% (Stohl et al., 2013). This practice exacerbates warming, endangers biodiversity, and jeopardizes the livelihoods of over five million Arctic inhabitants, including Indigenous peoples. As the U.S. engages in Arctic oil exploration, balancing energy development with environmental sustainability has become a pressing challenge for policymakers.To understand the current challenges, it is essential to examine the historical milestones that have shaped U.S. Arctic oil exploration and its evolving balance between development and conservation. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the discovery of Prudhoe Bay in the 1960s spurred interest in Arctic oil, while the creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1980 highlighted conservation concerns. Under Obama, large portions of the Arctic were closed to drilling to protect fragile ecosystems. The Trump administration reversed these measures, prioritizing energy independence. Recently, Biden reinstated a moratorium on Arctic oil leases, reflecting a renewed focus on climate action. In 2024, his administration finalized a plan to limit oil and gas drilling across 13 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, designating these areas as critical ecosystems that demand preservation (Joselow 2024). While this policy does emphasize Biden’s efforts to safeguard biodiversity and protect the climate, it also maintains allowance for the Willow project by excluding it from new leasing restrictions in the National Petroleum Reserve. Which is a notable omission, as it allows one of the nation’s largest oil drilling projects to move forward despite the administration’s broader push for environmental protection and reduced fossil fuel reliance.This nuanced approach highlights a balancing act between environmental goals and economic interests, particularly as key actors in the energy sector navigate these competing priorities. Russia and China have increasingly formed a strategic partnership in the Arctic, with both nations seeking to expand their influence in the region. The two countries have collaborated on joint energy projects, particularly in the Russian Arctic, where China has invested in oil and gas exploration. These partnerships allow China access to Russia's untapped northern energy resources while providing Russia with much-needed financial backing for its Arctic infrastructure. China, positioning itself as a "near-Arctic state," has also sought to enhance its influence in the region through investments in Arctic infrastructure, including shipping routes and port development (Sharma). The "Polar Silk Road," an extension of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, exemplifies this ambition, as it aims to create new trade routes through the Arctic, linking Asia with Europe. Chinese investment in the Northern Sea Route is particularly strategic, as the melting ice opens up shorter shipping lanes between the continents, which could drastically reduce transit times and costs for global trade (Sharma). Through these efforts, China and Russia are playing their pieces in Arctic governance, promoting their economic and geopolitical interests. However, this growing involvement also brings significant geopolitical risks, particularly in terms of competing militarization and territorial disputes. As both countries expand their presence in the region, military capabilities are increasingly being deployed, raising concerns in the US (Garamone). Russia, with its extensive military infrastructure in the region, has been fortifying its northern defenses, while China, although not an Arctic state, is seeking to establish a foothold through investments and partnerships (Sharma). This competition for influence in the Arctic not only complicates cooperation but also heightens the risk of conflict over contested borders and strategic resources.&nbsp;To address the complex challenges in Arctic exploration, several key strategies should be pursued. First, significant investment in advanced sustainable technologies is crucial. To achieve this, it should adopt advanced technologies like ice-resistant rigs and carbon capture systems to minimize environmental harm, alongside strict environmental safeguards, including mandatory impact assessments and penalties for non-compliance. A phased Arctic energy development map should prioritize short-term exploration of accessible fields and long-term renewable energy projects like wind and hydrogen. Strengthening the U.S.’s geopolitical stance is imperative, including implementing increased Coast Guard and naval presence and NATO coordination efforts. Strengthening Arctic Council leadership with an "Arctic Energy Code" can standardize environmental and safety rules. The "Arctic Energy Code," ideally developed within the next 2 years, would establish binding regulations on drilling practices, emissions standards, spill response protocols, and habitat protection, ensuring that all Arctic nations – namely China and Russia – adhere to uniform environmental safeguards and responsible resource management. Additionally, engaging Indigenous communities with increased job opportunities (such as operating and maintaining energy infrastructure) will build local support. Finally, launching renewable energy pilot projects immediately within 5–10 years will create a path toward sustainable energy production in the Arctic. These efforts, implemented over the next decade, are critical to securing U.S. leadership in Arctic exploration and ensuring alignment with global climate goals.Arctic exploration holds strategic significance for energy security, economic growth, and geopolitical influence. A balanced approach, integrating sustainable technologies, and maintaining international cooperation while addressing geopolitical risks, is necessary to navigate the region’s potential while minimizing environmental tension and challenges. The next decade will be critical for shaping the future of Arctic energy exploration and the geopolitical balance of the region.

Global climate change is reshaping the Arctic more drastically than any other region, with temperatures rising up to seven times faster than mid-latitudes. This warming trend, while alarming to environmentalists and Indigenous communities, has unlocked important opportunities for oil and gas exploration. The melting of glaciers and sea ice has exposed new fields containing an estimated 5.3% of global proven oil reserves and 21.7% of natural gas reserves (Borshchevskaia et al.). Additionally, longer ice-free periods have reduced exploration and production costs, further incentivizing activity in this region.



Analyses

By Program

By Department

Events

Event Types

Upcoming Events

3dpolicy

About 3dpolicy

Research at 3dpolicy

Analyses

Events

3dpolicy

Leena Elbouatmani

Biography

Education

Faculty of Governance, Economic and Social Sciences

Socials

Publications (2)

India-Pakistan Conflict Trajectory: Scenarios for Escalation and Regional Fallout

U.S. Arctic Offshore Oil Exploration: Navigating Energy, Environment, and Geopolitics