Latest / The Fourcast / Will India's missile strike on Pakistan lead to all out war?

Transcript

Will India's missile strike on Pakistan lead to all out war? · The Fourcast

0:00
Hello and welcome to the forecast.
0:01
An act of war. That's how Pakistan has
0:04
described India's missile attacks in what it said was
0:06
retaliation for a terrorist assault in Indian controlled
0:09
Kashmir in which 26 men were killed.
0:12
So where is this heading as Pakistan authorizes its military
0:16
to respond? We're going to have two
0:18
conversations with two experts from either side.
0:23
I'm joined from Delhi by the Emmy nominated reporter Barker
0:26
Dutch, who's reported from the front line in previous conflicts
0:29
between India and Pakistan, and also by Ayesha Siddiqa from the
0:34
Department of War Studies at King's College London.
0:36
She writes extensively on the Pakistan military after serving
0:40
as the country's director of Naval Research.
0:43
Barker, let's begin with you. What do you think the Indian
0:47
government believes it has achieved with these strikes?
0:50
I think the, dare I say unanimous sentiment in India
0:54
right now is a great sense of pride for the Indian armed
1:00
forces that have launched 24 missile strikes at 9 terror
1:05
targets not just inside Pakistan occupied Kashmir but inside
1:10
Pakistan Punjab. Now, anyone who tracks Pakistan
1:14
knows that Pakistan's politics, its army, its wealth is all
1:17
dominated by the area of Punjab. The fact that India has struck
1:22
with missiles at the headquarters of the Lashkar E
1:25
Taiba and the Jaish E Muhammad inside Pakistan's Punjab, I
1:29
think is a big statement that India is making about its end of
1:34
tolerance for Pakistan backed terrorism.
1:37
And I do want to add for your viewers in the United Kingdom
1:41
that the United Kingdom has since 2001 recognize the Lashkar
1:45
E Saiba as a prescribed terror group.
1:47
So I think this this is of course about retaliation for the
1:50
terror, terror attack in Pahelgam and Kashmir.
1:53
But it is also about making a broader statement about where
1:57
India stands on terrorism that is backed by the Pakistan Army.
2:02
Yes, but it but it is very much still a statement, isn't it?
2:05
Because although 26 people have been killed, according to those
2:08
reports, this level of air attack will not significantly
2:14
degrade those militant groups. So so you know it doesn't stop
2:19
them attacking again if they want to, does it?
2:22
So I think we can have a larger and a longer debate about
2:26
whether this actually changes Pakistan's calculus on what
2:31
India very clearly sees as asymmetric warfare, which is to
2:34
use terrorism against India. So yes, sure, you can ask, does
2:38
this really close down the Lashkar E Taiba and the Jaish E
2:41
Muhammad? Does this really swing
2:43
Pakistan's policy? And that would be a longer
2:45
debate. But I think in the here and now,
2:47
the signalling from these missile strikes is about, as one
2:52
Indian official told me, strategic resolve and a shift in
2:55
India's security doctrine. One of the days when, you know,
2:59
India would try and convince the world with dossier upon dossier
3:02
and then watching frustration as nothing would be done by
3:05
capitals around the world to shut down these terrorists.
3:09
I think it's also a sign of India's patience wearing in and
3:13
India making a larger statement that there will be a price to
3:16
pay every time there is a terrorist strike.
3:19
In terms of the evidence for Pakistan's government
3:23
involvement or military intelligence, I mean, do you, do
3:26
you think it will put into the public domain any of the proof,
3:32
if you like, that this goes beyond just terror attack terror
3:35
groups or militant groups working by themselves?
3:40
I think I should first say that India does not seek or need
3:44
United Nations mediation. It was Pakistan that asked for a
3:48
closed door meeting at the United Nations Security Council.
3:51
At the end of that meeting, there was no statement from the
3:54
UN. The statement that we got was
3:55
the set peace statement on. We hope this doesn't escalate
3:58
into a big, big conflict. Pakistan was trying to convince
4:02
the United Nations that this was, you know, that they they
4:07
were trying to disassociate from the attack.
4:08
We did. We have not seen any statement
4:11
from, from the UN or other countries that Pakistan is not
4:15
linked to the Lashkar E Taiba. So I should say that India
4:19
doesn't look for UN, you know, UN mediation or UN endorsement.
4:24
That's the first point on evidence, Krishnan, I have to
4:28
say with respect, you know, a nursery kid in India would know
4:32
that the Lashkar E Taiba is an asset of the Pakistan Army.
4:36
It is an asset. And, and let me tell you why
4:38
these two terror groups are the only terror groups in Pakistan.
4:41
Pakistan likes to say we're also a victim of terror, right?
4:44
These are the only two terror groups in Pakistan that have
4:48
never struck inside Pakistan. We don't get why the world
4:51
doesn't see this. It's staring everybody in the
4:53
face. But I think India has decided
4:55
that, look, whether the world gets it doesn't get it.
4:59
India is going to go ahead and do what it thinks is right for
5:02
its own strategic interests and to protect its own people.
5:05
I mean, also what's striking is that international governments
5:07
are not demanding this either, you know, which suggests that,
5:12
you know, Britain and America and other international
5:14
governments basically accept the proposition that there has been
5:19
Pakistani involvement in some of these groups in the past.
5:22
And therefore, it's reasonable for India to assume that there
5:25
is still some involvement in in the present.
5:28
But it is about sort of, I suppose, world public opinion
5:31
and India's desire to be, you know, seen as doing the right
5:35
thing. But I mean, what you're
5:38
suggesting is they probably won't bother.
5:40
So, you know, here's what I'll say.
5:42
I think there's a gap in information or understanding or
5:47
comprehension. That's the only way I can
5:49
understand it, because both the United States and the United
5:53
Kingdom do recognize these outfits to be terror groups
5:57
officially on their own right. These are prescribed terror
6:00
groups for the governments of the United States and the United
6:03
Kingdom, which makes it pretty shocking that that, that just
6:08
like we saw like a worldwide sort of condemnation of the
6:12
Hamas terror attacks of October 7th.
6:14
We can have a different debate on, you know, whether we agree
6:17
with how Israel responded over a prolonged period of time.
6:20
But there was no ambiguity in the, in the opinion of the
6:22
world, that was a terror attack. And, and, and, and you know who
6:25
the backers of the Hamas were. I think it's the same way there
6:29
is, there is growing frustration, anger, irritation
6:32
with the Western world in India. And, and I can say this to you,
6:35
I, I'm not speaking for the government.
6:38
I'm just speaking as an Indian. You ask any Indian of any
6:41
political affiliation and they'll tell you the same thing.
6:45
But that why isn't the Western world getting this?
6:47
You know, why is it because traditionally the West has
6:51
needed Pakistan for its operations in Afghanistan?
6:54
Well, that's past 2. The Taliban and Pakistan today
6:57
also have problems. These terror groups, globally
7:01
recognized terror groups are able to operate with impunity.
7:05
And by the way, there is reason to believe that the heads of
7:07
these two terror groups were taken into protection by the
7:11
Pakistan military. So while there have been strikes
7:13
on their terror bases and India has given out, a figure of 70
7:16
terrorists eliminated, India's not saying that the heads of
7:19
these groups have been eliminated because Pakistan has
7:21
has obviously taken them into protection.
7:24
The question is what happens now?
7:25
The Pakistani Prime Minister has said he's authorized
7:29
retaliation. Now, given that India's strikes
7:34
are missile strikes, you have to assume that any retaliation
7:38
could also involve missile strikes.
7:41
If it goes to that, you know what's India's response without
7:46
escalating out of control? It's an excellent question and I
7:51
will tell you that the official statement by the government on
7:54
these strikes underlined the fact that India was not seeking
7:58
escalation, that it had shown restraint in avoiding military
8:02
installations or civilians. However, what happens next
8:07
depends on the nature of the Pakistani response.
8:11
If the Pakistani response is contained and and and does not
8:16
does not take strike at A at a target that would take this up
8:20
the escalatory ladder, India would respond one way if.
8:25
I mean, what if? It's a military target.
8:29
I think India, I think, I think if it was an open field near a
8:32
military installation is very different from hitting a
8:34
military installation. So I think we literally, we have
8:38
to see what Pakistan does. I can tell you that the Indian
8:41
military does expect Pakistan to, to, to respond.
8:44
And this has, according to everybody I've spoken to and,
8:48
and, and interviewed on and off camera, been war games into the
8:52
plan. There's nobody in India who
8:53
thinks that Pakistan will not try and retaliate in some
8:57
manner. But what route Pakistan chooses
9:01
and behind the scenes, how much global pressure is being exerted
9:05
on Islamabad, which we don't know about, I think will
9:08
determine what happens next. There's been cross-border firing
9:11
again. That's resumed after a relative
9:14
period of calm for some years. What, what is the danger of that
9:18
escalating into a much bigger skirmish or something on the
9:22
scale of the cargo war? So I I don't think that the
9:26
firing at the Line of Control and the international border
9:29
will escalate into the levels of the Kargil war or war I
9:32
reported, because that was about Pakistani sitting on Indian
9:38
territory and the Indians fighting to get them out.
9:40
This is Pakistan in its own place.
9:42
In, in, in its own place. But firing across this this
9:46
line. However, the people who suffer
9:48
in this are civilians. We have had reports of nine
9:52
Indians killed in Pakistani firing.
9:54
We've had orders to evacuate villagers from the front line.
9:58
So clearly that is, I would say, a tragic consequence of the
10:05
situation. But in but but but one that is
10:08
the cost, unfortunately, of India's determination to to
10:13
retaliate and seek justice. How does India see a Pakistan as
10:17
a military rival? I mean, obviously in terms of
10:19
sheer numbers, India dwarfs Pakistan.
10:22
It has more of everything and more money and more resource and
10:26
more development. But around a small area, those
10:31
sorts of calculations aren't so simple.
10:34
Yeah, look, Krishnan, the Indian military vets and, you know,
10:39
serving and and retired officers that I've been speaking to, they
10:43
make the point that the Pakistan Army is a professional army and
10:47
therefore they will see it as a professional adversary.
10:50
But they add 2 points that I think it's important for the
10:53
audience to understand. 1 is that this is an this is an army
10:57
that India sees as increasingly radicalised and Islamised.
11:01
The Pakistan army chief is seen to be a deeply unpopular figure
11:04
at home. This conflict with India gives
11:07
him perhaps a short window to become popular for a brief
11:11
amount of time. He's jailed.
11:12
Imran Khan. Imran Khan today is by far the
11:15
most popular civilian politician in Pakistan.
11:18
He has an insurgency on his hands in Baluchistan, so he's
11:21
also unpopular because of that. While the Indian military sees
11:25
the Pakistan military as a professional adversary, one,
11:29
they see it as an increasingly Islamised military.
11:32
Second, they do not believe that the military always fights
11:35
conventional warfare. They believe that terrorism is
11:38
the way that the Pakistan military chooses to inflict pain
11:41
on India and that is why what we have seen today has happened.
11:45
And where did nuclear weapons come into this, and how do they
11:48
change the equation? So India has a no first use
11:52
doctrine and it is a voluntary no first use doctrine when it
11:56
comes to nuclear weapons. Pakistan has in the last few
11:59
days multiple times said that if needed, it would use it full
12:05
spectrum of of options, which would include the nuclear
12:09
weapons. I I can quote to you at least
12:11
three high-ranking officials, including two ministers of the
12:14
Pakistan government who have made this threat.
12:16
India sees this as nuclear blackmail.
12:18
They basically think that the world comes running to de
12:21
escalate because every time this happens, Pakistan threatens to
12:25
use a nuclear weapon, sends the world into panic, then begins
12:29
the urging of restraint. And so there's a sense in India
12:32
growing since in India, that Pakistan is a nuclear
12:34
blackmailer. Yeah, but who's going to urge
12:37
restraint now? I mean, who are the big
12:39
geopolitical brokers? Because Trump is showing little
12:41
sign of wanting to get involved as a as a peace broker.
12:46
Is India open to listening to anyone?
12:48
I don't think India will listen to anybody on the right to
12:51
respond. I don't think India will listen
12:53
to anybody on urging or why don't you sit down and talk to
12:57
Pakistan? I think that phases well in the
12:59
past, but I think there is a space for countries that do not
13:04
want this to escalate, to recognize that the terror groups
13:09
that its own governments prescribes as terror groups are
13:12
operating freely in Pakistan and to do something to shut that
13:15
down that that I think would be the best way for de escalation
13:21
to take place. Right.
13:22
So, but the the old fashioned idea of America coming along to
13:26
sort of knock heads together, that's all gone.
13:30
You know what India doesn't accept third party mediation.
13:34
But yes, behind the scenes we've seen, you know, in realpolitik
13:37
that does take place. Trump seems to distract it.
13:40
His his comment on camera was a bit banal.
13:43
He keeps talking about, you know, these countries have been
13:45
fighting for 1000 years. These countries have not
13:47
existed. Neither ours nor Pakistan have
13:49
existed for 1000 years, right? But there's a expectation that
13:53
there are other officials in the American administration who
13:57
understand the region better, who understand the challenges
13:59
better, who understand the dynamics better.
14:02
There's also a sense in India that despite Trump's banality,
14:06
the Biden administration in India was seen to have been much
14:09
softer in Pakistan than the Trump administration.
14:11
There's a sense in India that behind the scenes, America will
14:14
not tie India's hands. And.
14:17
And, and what is the China dynamic now?
14:19
Because obviously Pakistan is getting weapons from China now
14:22
is, you know, as as its relationship with America has
14:25
gone cold, it's warmed up its relationship with China.
14:28
How does that change things, which is obviously a strategic
14:30
rival and, well, an enemy in parts of Kashmir to India?
14:34
Yeah, it it's, it's a, it's a good question.
14:37
And there's been a lot of conversation about China here at
14:40
home. And the conclusion seems to be
14:43
that China will and has lent rhetorical support to Pakistan,
14:47
but that China will not be drawn in militarily, that if it if
14:50
push comes to shove, China will make a few statements, you know,
14:55
supporting Pakistan. But China is not going to, for
14:58
example, on in the eastern Himalaya, in the, in the high
15:01
ridges of the Himalayas, in eastern Ladakh, you, you've had,
15:05
you know, Chinese troops and Indian troops both stationed
15:09
because of a conflagration that took place in 2020.
15:12
I don't think, for instance, that China is going to suddenly
15:15
say, OK, let's now erupt this particular line of actual
15:19
control as it's called, so that India is, you know, under
15:22
greater pressure. So we I don't think there's a
15:24
sense that China will do more than rhetorical support to
15:27
Pakistan. I should also say that while
15:29
there have been serious anxieties and tensions between
15:31
India and China, a few months ago, a reproach my process was
15:35
begun and and the Mr. Modi met with Xi Jinping and that
15:40
reproach, my process has been in the works.
15:42
So that's significant. You know, I don't know how it
15:46
was game because nobody knew that this was going to happen.
15:49
But the fact is that India and China today are in a better
15:54
place. Not that anyone in India saying
15:55
China is going to stand with us, but I think it's relatively
15:59
better to what it was. And there's a sense that the
16:01
support won't go beyond rhetoric.
16:03
Just finally, I know you're on your way to Jammu, which
16:05
suggests you think this is going to go on for a bit, but you
16:09
don't think this is heading into a bigger war, do you?
16:11
Honestly, the answer to that would be I don't know.
16:14
I think India is not seeking war.
16:16
I think India has made the point it wanted to.
16:21
Now, depending on Pakistan's response, this could either go
16:27
higher up the escalatory ladder and open up other fronts of
16:30
conflict, or it could be contained.
16:33
We don't know. We just don't know the answer to
16:35
that. Pakadar, thank you very much.
16:39
Aisha, first of all, what do you think the Prime Minister's
16:43
instruction to retaliate means? It's for the military to decide
16:48
what would it count as retaliation.
16:50
I mean, any response would of course need to take into account
16:57
couple of factors. First being, how do you convince
17:02
the world that whatever you're going to target are not genuine,
17:07
just targets? And his claims are that it has
17:13
targeted specific, you know, madrasas occupied by certain
17:21
particular militant groups based inside Pakistan.
17:27
What will Pakistan, you know, be targeting?
17:30
Would it go for military targets, hard targets or soft
17:34
targets? And in both case, that would
17:37
entail expansion of conflict. And the nature of the tag, of
17:42
course, would really have influence on escalation.
17:50
Yeah. So they have to be very careful.
17:53
I mean, India has. Not.
17:55
India has not gone for Pakistani military targets.
18:00
It's gone for what it says are militants group targets, but
18:05
it's hard to see what else Pakistan can target other than
18:09
the Indian military. India has kind of explained it's
18:13
case to the world. And if Pakistan retaliates, how
18:17
will it explain to the world? If it's going to go after, you
18:22
know, civilian targets, then there's going to be escalation
18:27
of the Gulf ghost. For military targets, there
18:29
would be escalation. And so the question is, the
18:32
Pakistani Prime Minister has basically given it, you know,
18:39
the responsibility to the military because right now this
18:42
is one of the weakest governments Pakistan has.
18:45
So what do you think the military concerns will be?
18:48
I mean, are they likely to want to actually strike at Indian
18:53
military targets or will they be counselling caution?
19:00
There is anger, there is anxiety like in India, there is anger
19:05
and anxiety in Pakistan. But I think what falls on the
19:12
army chief's shoulders entirely more than the Prime Minister
19:16
because the army chief has somehow taken the responsibility
19:21
of everything from running politics to the economy to
19:24
military strategy of where would he want to stop himself.
19:30
It's too early at this stage. But it has been confirmed by
19:33
various Indian sources that I've spoken to that at least three to
19:38
four Indian aircraft have Indian Air Force aircraft have been
19:43
done. So either he can satisfy himself
19:45
with that, as had happened earlier on during in 2019 with
19:51
Pulwama Balakot, or he can move on and say no, I'm hell bent on
19:57
doing something else. But with escalation of conflict,
20:01
it means he has to look at Pakistan's economy, Pakistan's
20:09
political affairs and a lot more things are on his shoulder than
20:13
just carrying out a decision. Yes.
20:17
And, and how stable do you think the government is, You know, and
20:22
is there any possibility that the military will say, well,
20:24
once again, we're going to have to step in and take over the
20:28
political affairs? It's already running the
20:33
political affairs. It's not a question of the
20:35
government. Yeah, I mean, what we are
20:37
talking about. What I'm talking about is not
20:40
the political government. The political government has
20:43
already given entire control to the military.
20:47
It's the army chief we are talking about who is concerned
20:51
about his image, who is concerned about presenting a
20:56
different, stronger, sturdier Pakistan.
21:01
So already he has the power to do it.
21:04
The question is, is it a matter of if he doesn't deliver a
21:10
counterattack, is he worried about more worried about how
21:16
does he come out looking as a weak general which will which
21:22
may then create issues for him with his own army circle saying,
21:28
you know, this man can't do the job or you know, he can live
21:34
with kind of limiting the response to where it stands
21:38
today and. Where did the geopolitics step
21:42
in here? I mean, who are Pakistan's
21:45
allies in this situation given that the Americans seem to be,
21:52
you know, saying things that are pretty pro Indian?
21:57
Well, despite what you're hearing pro Indian, I think the
22:02
fact is that Pakistan is in conversation with the United
22:05
States. Do not forget the very recently
22:09
Donald Trump thanked Pakistan for helping it capture the
22:14
Islamic State. Khorasan the terrorist and
22:17
handing them over to to Washington.
22:20
So they have a good counterterrorism dialogue that
22:25
of course there is China and then there is Turkey, there is
22:30
Saudi Arabia and they're all in conversation.
22:34
These are Pakistan's friends. Now, I think what is different
22:38
about today's conflict as compared to the to the previous
22:43
ones, India, Pakistan have fought is that this time the
22:48
world also has other concerns. So they don't want the two
22:52
countries going into conflict, that's for sure.
22:56
And the other is that they're willing to have a conversation
23:00
and arrange a conversation between India and Pakistan to
23:04
stop both of them. But even China is worried about,
23:11
of course, Pakistan's security, but it's not going to kind of
23:15
step out of line and do something which kind of drags it
23:20
in this conflict directly. So these are friends who are
23:24
trying to calm with those who are interested in a strong
23:30
Pakistan, but also friends who would like this conflict to end
23:37
and not, you know, in result in grievous harm to Pakistan.
23:42
The the fact that the Indians have gone for air strikes
23:46
already ratchets it up one step in terms of the kind of conflict
23:51
it is. It's obviously very different to
23:53
the Kargil War, which was which was forced on the ground.
23:57
Is it possible that sort of a ground skirmish is one of the
24:02
things that comes out of this, or are we already passed that?
24:06
With a ground war, I would I'm, I'm still thinking is something
24:12
which will be avoided, which is not to anybody's interest.
24:17
When we're talking India, Pakistan comparison, we are
24:20
looking at a situation where India, Pakistan have a numerical
24:25
asymmetry, but qualitatively there is a symmetry.
24:31
It's not that Pakistan is a weak country with lesser capabilities
24:37
and wouldn't be able to defend itself in a short war because
24:43
whatever was in the past have been short wars.
24:46
But this one is going to be shorter because both countries
24:51
are nuclear armed and there is a concern of nuclear deterrence
24:55
kicking in. So therefore I don't think and
24:58
and it's not to the benefit of either to crossover unless some
25:04
other red line is crossed. The the other point that the
25:08
Indians keep making is why has Pakistan allowed these camps to
25:12
continue? I mean, they've been there for
25:14
decades, you know, Why hasn't it done more to crack down on these
25:20
people who are actually causing havoc for Pakistan as much as
25:24
anything else? There is a see from Pakistan's
25:29
perspective that two kinds of militants 1 is the you know,
25:34
it's it's, it's the same old good Taliban, bad Taliban
25:37
strategy. It is being attacked by the
25:41
tariqa Taliban Pakistan, you know associate with Afghanistan.
25:46
Now these groups which and these madrasas and mosque which have
25:52
been targeted inside Pakistan belong to groups which are kind
25:58
of have always been closer to the state and therefore though
26:03
no need to respond to them or attack them.
26:08
So that's where the difference lies.
26:10
The other thing is that from from Pakistan's perspective,
26:13
there is a larger issue of Kashmir unresolved.
26:17
The Kashmir dispute still remains unresolved.
26:21
And if there is a conflict between India and Pakistan, then
26:26
these militant groups would be fighting on Pakistan's side and
26:30
therefore they've been kept. They've not been eliminated.
26:36
So, you know, I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining that.
26:41
What is that perspective? But do you think that rationale
26:45
still holds water now? I mean, given where we've got
26:48
to, I mean, does it not make sense for Pakistan to say, OK,
26:53
we're going to get rid of all our militant groups and we're
26:56
going to, you know, end any possibility of being accused of,
27:00
of sponsoring or backing terrorism in any way?
27:05
The point is that if you believe that India and Pakistan need to
27:10
resolve Kashmir and that India is, for example, the the other
27:19
understanding Pakistan has is sponsoring Baloch militants,
27:25
then there has to be definitely going to be a conversation.
27:29
The problem is that since 2019, both countries have not had a
27:34
conversation. That's a real challenge here.
27:40
So once you sit down, perhaps you can talk about Kashmir, you
27:44
can talk about Balochistan, but there's been no back channel
27:49
since I believe 2020-2021. A conversation has to start.
27:55
And this is something which they'd probably negotiate, but
28:01
the understanding in Islamabad is that this is something we
28:06
need for, you know, something that you know, you'll barter and
28:11
you'll exchange one for the other.
28:15
But when the point comes for that negotiation, that's when it
28:18
will happen. Yes, I mean, the trouble is that
28:21
Prime Minister Modi is not showing any signs of feeling
28:24
that he needs to sit down and negotiate because he feels
28:28
strong. Well, but I think even if you
28:34
feel strong, you would need to have this conversation.
28:39
I mean, this is a conflict which if it escalates, it's going to
28:42
be definitely going to be damaging for Pakistan, but it's
28:45
not going to be good for India either.
28:49
The need to for for a conversation is important.
28:53
And so I mean, from everything you're saying suggests that
28:57
people with calm heads in Pakistan will be doing
28:59
everything that they can to make sure this doesn't escalate.
29:03
So it's at the moment, it's just, it's a, it's a very
29:05
delicate balancing act of satisfying the desire for some
29:10
sort of retaliation with not pushing things over the brink.
29:17
Well, that's what one had expected, expected even with in
29:22
India's case that Mister Modi would look at the benefits
29:27
versus cost of escalating. But he did because he's a
29:31
populist and because there's pressure on him, in some ways
29:37
lesser ways, But this one, the army chief is a populist as
29:41
well. So there is a pressure on him.
29:45
What? Difference do you think nuclear
29:47
weapons have actually made? I mean, the way that this is
29:50
always portrayed in Western media is, you know, you have
29:53
these two nuclear armed neighbors and there's a sort of
29:57
a rush to Oh my God, are we going to nuclear war every time
30:00
anything happens? Obviously both sides are not
30:04
interested in that. But what?
30:05
What's the actual change in the dynamic because of nuclear
30:08
weapons and their existence? Well, wars are are limited and
30:15
they have to be more cautious and much more geostrategically
30:20
rational. But how far do they extend?
30:23
They have a range of weapons as well. 3-4 days ago Pakistan
30:28
tested it's surface to surface short range, surface to surface
30:33
missile. The options are limited.
30:37
These are two countries next door to each other.
30:41
So of course the threat increases.
30:45
But I think I think what is what is problematic at this point in
30:51
time is that we're looking at a situation where in terms of
30:56
geopolitics, there is not a bigger power.
31:01
So to say, which is kind of which used to come immediately
31:07
to help and say, all right, you know, quieten both and and, and
31:11
say, you know, you have to calm down.
31:17
That situation is not there. So they have to figure out on
31:22
their own in in some ways, how far to push this conflict.
31:29
Aisha, thank you very much. And that's it for this edition
31:31
of the Forecast. Until next time, bye bye.