![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Valid RSS")
This is a valid RSS feed.
This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.
<div class="wp-block-image">
line 78, column 0: (16 occurrences) [help]
<div class="wp-block-image">
line 78, column 0: (16 occurrences) [help]
<div class="wp-block-image">
line 229, column 0: (13 occurrences) [help]
<div class="wp-block-image">
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>khalidmasood.com</title> <atom:link href="https://khalidmasood.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 17:45:25 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2</generator>  <item> <title>U.S.-India Trade Standoff: Trump’s Tariff Threats Expose India’s Arrogant Defiance</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/u-s-india-trade-standoff/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/u-s-india-trade-standoff/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 17:43:28 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Geo Economics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[India]]></category> <category><![CDATA[United States]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#BilateralRelations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#EnergySecurity]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaDefiance]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Modi]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#RussianOil]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#TradeStandoff]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#TrumpTariffs]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#USIndiaTrade]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4240</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Khalid Masood) Introduction In the volatile chessboard of global trade, the 2025 U.S.-India standoff over India’s obstinate reliance on Russian oil has laid bare New Delhi’s diplomatic hubris. For instance, President Donald Trump’s August 4, 2025, Truth Social post threatened to “substantially raise” tariffs on Indian exports for continuing to import 35% of its...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/u-s-india-trade-standoff/">U.S.-India Trade Standoff: Trump’s Tariff Threats Expose India’s Arrogant Defiance</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<em><strong>By Khalid Masood</strong></em>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>In the volatile chessboard of global trade, the 2025 U.S.-India standoff over India’s obstinate reliance on Russian oil has laid bare New Delhi’s diplomatic hubris. For instance, President Donald Trump’s August 4, 2025, Truth Social post threatened to “<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/04/business/india-trump-tariffs-russian-oil">substantially raise</a>” tariffs on Indian exports for continuing to import 35% of its crude from Russia, a move fueling Moscow’s war machine. India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, responded with defiant arrogance, vowing to maintain these purchases despite the risk of economic isolation. Consequently, this clash, rooted in India’s refusal to align with Western sanctions and its inflated sense of strategic autonomy, raises pivotal questions: Can the U.S. ignore India’s overhyped market? Can India survive without its largest export destination? This article examines the historical context, dissects the standoff’s pros and cons, evaluates mutual trade dependence, and predicts future outcomes, highlighting India’s reckless defiance and the U.S.’s justified frustration.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context of U.S.-India Trade Relations</h2> <p>U.S.-India trade relations, while growing, have long been marred by India’s protectionist tendencies and diplomatic overreach. For example, during the Cold War, India’s Soviet alignment and non-aligned posturing strained ties with Washington, which backed Pakistan. India’s 1991 liberalization boosted trade from $5.6 billion in 1990 to $130 billion by 2024, making the U.S. India’s largest export market. However, India’s $45.8 billion trade surplus in 2024, driven by pharmaceuticals and textiles, reflects its reluctance to open markets, with 12% average tariffs stifling U.S. goods.</p> <p>The 2008 U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement briefly aligned interests, with India purchasing $20 billion in U.S. arms by 2025. Yet, tensions persisted. For instance, Trump’s first term saw India lose GSP status in 2019, prompting retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products like almonds. India’s high tariffs and non-tariff barriers, especially in agriculture, frustrated U.S. negotiators. The 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict exposed India’s opportunism, as it ramped up Russian oil imports from 3% to 35% by 2024, exploiting discounts while ignoring Western sanctions. India’s compliance with U.S. pressure on Iranian oil in 2019 contrasts with its 2025 defiance, revealing a pattern of strategic flip-flopping that undermines its global credibility.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="630" height="420" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435t.webp" alt="" class="wp-image-4245" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435t.webp 630w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435t-300x200.webp 300w" sizes="(max-width: 630px) 100vw, 630px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The 2025 Tariff Standoff</h2> <p>On July 30, 2025, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian exports, effective August 7, citing India’s Russian oil and arms purchases. He escalated on August 4, threatening further hikes, stating, “India is buying massive amounts of Russian oil, then selling it for big profits, undermining our sanctions.” India’s External Affairs Ministry, in a tone of wounded pride, called the targeting “unfair,” falsely claiming alignment with the G7-EU price cap. For example, India’s oil imports, at 1.75 million barrels daily, fuel Russia’s economy, contradicting its moral posturing. Modi’s government, stung by Trump’s public rebuke and his Pakistan oil deal, vowed to continue Russian imports, citing long-term contracts and energy needs.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img decoding="async" width="594" height="586" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435trgh-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-4241" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435trgh-1.png 594w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435trgh-1-300x296.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 594px) 100vw, 594px" /></figure></div> <p>India’s response reeks of arrogance. For instance, Energy Minister Hardeep Singh Puri’s claim that India’s imports stabilize global markets ignores their role in sustaining Russia’s war. The standoff, worsened by India’s denial of Trump’s 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire mediation, highlights New Delhi’s diplomatic isolation. Modi’s defiance, driven by domestic nationalist pressures, risks economic fallout, as India’s stock markets dipped 3% post-tariff announcement. Thus, India’s reckless stance contrasts with the U.S.’s strategic pressure, exposing New Delhi’s miscalculation in a multipolar world.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pros and Cons for the United States</h2> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Pros</h3> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Curbing Russia’s War Economy</strong>: Tariffs pressure India, Russia’s largest oil buyer, to reduce $68.7 billion in trade, weakening Moscow’s Ukraine campaign. For example, secondary sanctions could disrupt India’s oil refining profits.</li> <li><strong>Addressing Trade Imbalances</strong>: The U.S. targets India’s $45.8 billion trade surplus. Tariffs may force India to lower its 12% tariffs, opening markets for U.S. agriculture and dairy.</li> <li><strong>Geopolitical Realignment</strong>: Favoring Pakistan’s 2025 oil deal pressures India to abandon Russian ties, reinforcing U.S. leverage in South Asia against China.</li></ol> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Cons</h3> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Risk to Indian Market Access</strong>: India, the U.S.’s 12th-largest trading partner, supplies 20% of generic drugs. Tariffs could divert Indian exports to China or the EU, reducing U.S. market share.</li> <li><strong>Consumer Price Hikes</strong>: Tariffs will raise U.S. costs for Indian pharmaceuticals and electronics. Diageo’s $200 million hit signals broader economic impacts.</li> <li><strong>Weakening Indo-Pacific Strategy</strong>: Alienating India, a key counterweight to China, risks pushing it toward BRICS allies, undermining $20 billion in U.S. arms deals.</li></ol> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pros and Cons for India</h2> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Pros</h3> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Energy Affordability</strong>: Russian oil, at 35% of imports, saves India $5 billion annually, per the IEA. Continuing purchases ensures energy for 1.4 billion people.</li> <li><strong>Domestic Political Gains</strong>: Modi’s defiance counters accusations of weakness, bolstering BJP’s nationalist image ahead of elections.</li> <li><strong>Alternative Markets</strong>: India’s trade with the EU ($110 billion) and Japan ($20 billion), plus the 2025 India-UK CETA, offsets U.S. export losses.</li></ol> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Cons</h3> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Economic Fallout</strong>: A 25% tariff could cost India $10 billion yearly, hitting pharmaceuticals and textiles. For instance, Ajay Sahai warned of reduced U.S. demand.</li> <li><strong>Diplomatic Isolation</strong>: India’s Russian ties alienate Western allies. Canada’s 2025 G7 snub reflects growing criticism of India’s Kashmir policies.</li> <li><strong>Defense and Technology Risks</strong>: Tariffs threaten $20 billion in U.S. arms deals and technology transfers, critical for India’s military modernization.</li></ol> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Can the U.S. Ignore the Indian Market?</h2> <p>The U.S. cannot lightly dismiss India’s market, despite Trump’s bravado. For example, India’s $130 billion trade with the U.S. in 2024 supports American industries, with India supplying 20% of generic drugs and surpassing China in smartphone production. The 4.4 million Indian diaspora and 241 million air passengers bolster cultural and economic ties. However, Trump’s protectionism prioritizes short-term revenue, with 2025 tariffs on 69 countries generating significant funds. Ignoring India risks long-term losses, as India could redirect exports to the EU or Japan. Moreover, India’s role in countering China, via $20 billion in U.S. arms, is vital. Pushing India toward BRICS risks weakening U.S. strategic goals, making sustained disengagement impractical.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img decoding="async" width="1024" height="1024" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543ref-1024x1024.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-4244" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543ref-1024x1024.jpeg 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543ref-300x300.jpeg 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543ref-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543ref-768x768.jpeg 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543ref.jpeg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Can India Survive Without U.S. Trade?</h2> <p>India’s economy, while tied to the U.S., can endure reduced trade, but not without pain. For instance, $74 billion in U.S. exports (11% of total exports) face tariff risks, impacting pharmaceuticals and gems. India’s $3.5 trillion domestic market absorbs production, and trade with the EU and ASEAN provides alternatives. However, replacing Russian oil with costlier U.S. or Saudi crude could raise prices by $10 per barrel, straining consumers. India’s $120 billion defense budget relies on U.S. technology, and tariffs could disrupt Rafale and AMCA programs. Modi’s defiance, while politically expedient, risks economic isolation, as seen in the 2025 Operation Sindoor fallout. Thus, India’s survival is possible but costly without U.S. trade.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Countries</h2> <p>The U.S.-India standoff offers lessons for third world nations navigating superpower pressures. For instance, India’s defiance, while bold, exposes its overreliance on domestic rhetoric over diplomatic pragmatism. Smaller nations should emulate Pakistan’s 2025 oil deal with the U.S., balancing ties with multiple powers. Moreover, investing in domestic markets, as India does, mitigates trade shocks. However, India’s failure to secure global support post-Sindoor shows the risks of alienating allies. For example, third world countries should leverage multilateral forums, like the OIC or ASEAN, to counter unilateral pressures, ensuring economic and strategic resilience in a multipolar world.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Precedents and Future Predictions</h2> <p>Historically, India bent to U.S. pressure, halting Iranian oil imports in 2019 at great cost. The 2025 standoff, however, sees India’s arrogance drive defiance, emboldened by BRICS and domestic markets. The 2025 Operation Sindoor clash, where India faced global isolation, reinforces its resolve to resist. Future scenarios include:</p> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Escalation</strong>: Trump may impose 50% tariffs, forcing India to diversify oil sources. India could retaliate with tariffs or BRICS-led energy deals.</li> <li><strong>Negotiation</strong>: Five 2025 backchannel talks suggest a compromise, with India reducing Russian oil and the U.S. lowering tariffs to 15%.</li> <li><strong>Stalemate</strong>: India’s defiance could persist until Trump’s August 8 Ukraine deadline, absorbing economic hits via alternative markets.</li></ol> <p>India’s pivot to Russia and China risks Western alienation but strengthens BRICS. The U.S., needing India’s market, may soften its stance to preserve strategic ties.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="670" height="377" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543rerfrf.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4243" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543rerfrf.jpg 670w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543rerfrf-300x169.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 670px) 100vw, 670px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption"> </figcaption></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>The 2025 U.S.-India trade standoff, sparked by Trump’s tariff threats over India’s Russian oil purchases, exposes New Delhi’s arrogant defiance. For instance, India’s refusal to align with Western sanctions, while politically expedient, risks $10 billion in trade losses and diplomatic isolation. The U.S. gains leverage but jeopardizes India’s market and Indo-Pacific role. Neither can fully disengage: the U.S. needs India’s economic and strategic weight, while India relies on U.S. trade and technology. Future talks may ease tensions, but India’s reckless posturing threatens its global standing, underscoring the need for pragmatic diplomacy in a multipolar world.</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/u-s-india-trade-standoff/">U.S.-India Trade Standoff: Trump’s Tariff Threats Expose India’s Arrogant Defiance</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/u-s-india-trade-standoff/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>🌟 From Lyari’s Streets to Global Glory: Better Future Pakistan’s Historic Norway Cup 2025 Victory</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/historic-norway-cup-2025-victory/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/historic-norway-cup-2025-victory/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 12:12:40 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4234</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Khalid Masood) In a tale that resonates with the raw spirit of human triumph, a group of underprivileged teenagers from Karachi’s Lyari neighborhood redefined what’s possible at the Norway Football Cup 2025. The U-15 squad of Better Future Pakistan, forged from the grit of street life, stormed through one of the world’s largest youth...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/historic-norway-cup-2025-victory/">🌟 From Lyari’s Streets to Global Glory: Better Future Pakistan’s Historic Norway Cup 2025 Victory</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<strong><em>By Khalid Masood</em></strong>)<br></h6> <p>In a tale that resonates with the raw spirit of human triumph, a group of underprivileged teenagers from Karachi’s <strong>Lyari</strong> neighborhood redefined what’s possible at the <strong>Norway Football Cup 2025</strong>. The U-15 squad of <strong>Better Future Pakistan</strong>, forged from the grit of street life, stormed through one of the world’s largest youth football tournaments, defeating 35 national teams in a campaign of sheer dominance. Their victory wasn’t just a sporting milestone—it was a beacon of hope, a testament to resilience, and a clarion call for the untapped potential of Pakistan’s youth.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A Vision Born of Compassion</h2> <p>The story begins not in Oslo’s stadiums but in the bustling, often overlooked streets of Lyari, Karachi’s heart of football passion. Three Norwegian entrepreneurs—<strong>Suleman Sarwar, Farooq Ansari, and Muhammad Imran</strong>—saw beyond the poverty and hardship. Through their initiative, <em>Better Future</em>, they sought to uplift street-working children by harnessing the universal language of football. Hand-picked for their raw talent, these youngsters underwent 6–8 months of rigorous training. Many had never ventured beyond their neighborhood; yet, in July 2025, they found themselves on a plane to Norway, ready to face the world.</p> <p>This wasn’t just a team—it was a movement. The founders’ vision was clear: to give these kids a shot at greatness, proving that merit could outshine circumstance. With every goal they scored, they carried the dreams of their families, their community, and a nation yearning for heroes.</p> <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="501" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.10-PM-1024x501.png" alt="" class="wp-image-4238" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.10-PM-1024x501.png 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.10-PM-300x147.png 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.10-PM-768x376.png 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.10-PM.png 1362w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A Campaign That Echoed Across Continents</h2> <p>From the moment the whistle blew in Oslo, Better Future Pakistan captivated the football world with their fearless play and unrelenting spirit. Their journey through the tournament was nothing short of spectacular:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Group Stage</strong>: The Lyari boys announced their arrival with an 8–0 rout of Stabæk Fotball 2, followed by a 3–0 dismantling of Bergen Nord and a 5–0 thrashing of Krokelvdalen IL 2. They finished with a staggering +16 goal difference, setting the tone for their dominance.</li> <li><strong>Knockout Rounds</strong>: They powered through with a 4–0 win over Levanger FK, then showcased resilience in tight 4–2 victories against Skeid and Greåker IF. In the semifinals, they overwhelmed Gjelleråsen 4–1, proving their mettle under pressure.</li> <li><strong>The Final</strong>: Against Norway’s FK Gjøvik-Lyn in Oslo’s packed stadium, the team displayed composure beyond their years. Two clinical goals sealed a 2–0 victory, crowning Better Future Pakistan the Norway Cup 2025 Boys U-15 Champions.</li></ul> <p>Their stats tell a story of supremacy: nine wins, 38 goals scored, and only five conceded. But beyond the numbers was a style of play—dynamic, disciplined, and fearless—that won hearts worldwide.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="574" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-1024x574.png" alt="" class="wp-image-4237" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-1024x574.png 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-300x168.png 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-768x430.png 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM.png 1160w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">More Than Victory: A Legacy of Honor</h2> <p>What set these young champions apart wasn’t just their skill but their character. Throughout the tournament, they earned 16 fair-play green cards, a testament to their sportsmanship. In the heat of competition, they played with humility, respect, and a quiet pride that spoke louder than any trophy. Opponents and spectators alike praised their grace, with international media calling them “ambassadors of Pakistan’s spirit.”</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A Redemption and a Revolution</h2> <p>For Better Future Pakistan, this victory was deeply personal. In 2024, they had reached the Norway Cup final only to fall agonizingly short on penalties. That heartbreak fueled their resolve. The 2025 triumph wasn’t just a win—it was redemption, a roaring statement that Pakistan’s youth could compete with the best and emerge victorious.</p> <p>This milestone reverberated across Pakistan. Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah called it “a moment of national pride,” pledging greater investment in grassroots sports. From social media to newsrooms, the nation celebrated these unlikely heroes, with outlets like <em>The Frontier Post</em>, <em>Daily Times</em>, and <em>ProPakistani</em> hailing their achievement as a turning point for Pakistani football.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="646" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-001-1024x646.png" alt="" class="wp-image-4236" style="width:691px;height:auto" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-001-1024x646.png 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-001-300x189.png 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-001-768x484.png 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screen-Shot-08-05-25-at-05.05-PM-001.png 1031w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The Faces of Lyari’s Triumph</h2> <p>These were no ordinary athletes. They were the children of Lyari—street vendors, laborers’ sons, kids society often overlooked. Football gave them a stage, and they seized it with both hands. Under the guidance of dedicated coaches and the <em>Better Future</em> initiative, they transformed adversity into strength. Their medals, gleaming under Oslo’s summer sky, symbolized more than sporting success—they were emblems of hope, unity, and the power of dreams.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A Blueprint for Pakistan’s Future</h2> <p>The Norway Cup victory is not the end but a beginning. Better Future Pakistan’s success highlights the untapped potential in Pakistan’s underserved communities. With proper infrastructure—training facilities, youth academies, and sustained funding—these boys could be the vanguard of a football revolution. Imagine a future where Pakistan’s national team, built from such grassroots talent, competes at the World Cup. This triumph shows it’s not a pipe dream but a tangible possibility.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A Global Inspiration</h2> <p>From the dusty streets of Lyari to the podium in Oslo, Better Future Pakistan’s journey is a story for the ages. It’s about defying odds, shattering stereotypes, and proving that talent knows no postcode. These young champions have hoisted Pakistan’s flag high, showing the world that with vision, hard work, and belief, even the most marginalized can rise to global glory. Let it spark a revolution in youth sports across Pakistan, where every child, no matter their background, gets a chance to dream big. As the nation celebrates these heroes, one truth shines clear: the future of Pakistan is bright, and it’s kicking a ball toward greatness.</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/historic-norway-cup-2025-victory/">🌟 From Lyari’s Streets to Global Glory: Better Future Pakistan’s Historic Norway Cup 2025 Victory</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/historic-norway-cup-2025-victory/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Happy 64th Birthday, Barack Obama: A Life of Leadership, Legacy, and Lessons</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/barack-obamas-64th-birthday/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/barack-obamas-64th-birthday/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 08:18:44 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[United States]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#BarackObama]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#HappyBirthdayObama]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#HistoryMakers]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Leadership]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Obama64]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#ObamaAchievements]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PresidentialLegacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#YesWeCan]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4227</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Quratulain Khalid) Today, August 4, 2025, the world joins in wishing former U.S. President Barack Obama a very happy 64th birthday. Social media platforms are abuzz with tributes, including a heartfelt post from his wife, Michelle Obama, on Instagram, and warm wishes from world leaders, celebrities, and millions of admirers around the globe. On...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/barack-obamas-64th-birthday/">Happy 64th Birthday, Barack Obama: A Life of Leadership, Legacy, and Lessons</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="has-text-align-center">(<em>By Quratulain Khalid</em>)</p> <p>Today, <strong>August 4, 2025</strong>, the world joins in wishing former <strong>U.S. President Barack Obama</strong> a very happy <strong>64th birthday</strong>. Social media platforms are abuzz with tributes, including a heartfelt post from his wife, Michelle Obama, on Instagram, and warm wishes from world leaders, celebrities, and millions of admirers around the globe. On this special occasion, it is both timely and fitting to reflect on the remarkable journey of Barack Obama—a journey that continues to inspire, challenge, and define modern leadership.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="456" height="282" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/345r43erfrrf.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-4229" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/345r43erfrrf.jpeg 456w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/345r43erfrrf-300x186.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 456px) 100vw, 456px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Early Life and Background</h2> <p>Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. The son of Ann Dunham from Kansas and Barack Obama Sr. from Kenya, Obama grew up in a family that embodied a blend of cultures, experiences, and aspirations. His parents’ unlikely union, and their eventual separation, would shape the young Obama’s worldview—teaching him about resilience, the value of education, and the richness of diversity.</p> <p>Obama attended Punahou School in Honolulu, excelling academically and on the basketball court. His curiosity led him first to Occidental College in Los Angeles and then to Columbia University in New York, where he graduated with a degree in political science in 1983. He spent several years working as a community organizer in Chicago, where he found his calling in grassroots activism and witnessed firsthand the challenges facing underserved communities.</p> <p>Recognizing the need for systemic change, he attended Harvard Law School, where he made history as the first Black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Returning to Chicago, he practiced civil rights law and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, solidifying his commitment to public service.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The Political Rise: From Illinois to the White House</h2> <p>Obama’s political career began in the Illinois State Senate, where he served from 1997 to 2004. Known for his ability to build consensus and bridge partisan divides, Obama championed ethics reform and expanded healthcare for children and families. In 2004, he delivered a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that thrust him into the national spotlight. His speech, emphasizing hope, unity, and the “audacity of hope,” resonated deeply with Americans searching for new leadership.</p> <p>That same year, Obama won election to the U.S. Senate, representing Illinois. He continued to advocate for transparency, nuclear non-proliferation, and support for veterans. But it was his stirring rhetoric, broad appeal, and unique life story that propelled him to the forefront of American politics.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="683" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/343234r-1024x683.avif" alt="" class="wp-image-4230" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/343234r-1024x683.avif 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/343234r-300x200.avif 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/343234r-768x512.avif 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/343234r-1536x1025.avif 1536w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/343234r.avif 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Presidency: Achievements and Challenges</h2> <p>Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States in November 2008, becoming the first African American to hold the office. His campaign’s message of “Yes We Can” inspired millions at home and abroad, symbolizing a turning point in America’s ongoing struggle for equality and justice.</p> <p>His presidency, spanning from January 20, 2009, to January 20, 2017, was marked by both groundbreaking achievements and significant challenges.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Major Achievements</h2> <ul class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Healthcare Reform</strong><br>The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was arguably Obama’s signature domestic achievement. Passed in 2010, it extended health insurance to over 20 million previously uninsured Americans, protected people with pre-existing conditions, and sought to broaden Medicaid coverage. While controversial and a source of partisan division, the ACA fundamentally reshaped America’s healthcare landscape.</li> <li><strong>Economic Recovery</strong><br>Obama took office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. His administration launched the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, stabilized the banking sector, and rescued the auto industry. By the end of his term, the U.S. had seen 75 straight months of job growth and a significant drop in the unemployment rate.</li> <li><strong>Foreign Policy and Diplomacy</strong><br>Obama ended formal combat operations in Iraq, ordered the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and oversaw the operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011. His administration also promoted re-engagement with Cuba, leading to the restoration of diplomatic relations after more than 50 years.</li> <li><strong>Social Progress and Civil Rights</strong><br>Obama’s support for marriage equality was instrumental in shifting public opinion, culminating in the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015. He advanced criminal justice reform, increased Pell Grants for college students, and promoted initiatives like My Brother’s Keeper to support young men of color.</li> <li><strong>Climate Change Leadership</strong><br>Committed to the fight against global warming, Obama launched the Clean Power Plan, increased fuel efficiency standards, and played a pivotal role in negotiating the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015—a global accord to limit greenhouse gas emissions.</li></ul> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Key Challenges and Criticisms</h2> <ul class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Healthcare Implementation and Political Backlash</strong><br>The Affordable Care Act faced monumental hurdles, including a botched website launch, fierce Republican opposition, and repeated attempts to repeal or undermine it. Critics argued the law was too complex, burdensome for businesses, and did not do enough to control rising healthcare costs.</li> <li><strong>Foreign Policy Setbacks</strong><br>Obama’s measured approach to foreign intervention drew both praise and criticism. The drawdown in Iraq was followed by the rise of ISIS, and the administration’s handling of Syria’s civil war was widely viewed as hesitant, particularly when Obama did not enforce his self-imposed “red line” against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.</li> <li><strong>Partisan Polarization</strong><br>Despite early promises to bridge partisan divides, Obama presided over an era of increasing political polarization. His attempts at bipartisan cooperation were frequently thwarted by an intransigent Congress, leading to executive actions that intensified political animosity.</li> <li><strong>Drone Warfare and Surveillance</strong><br>The expanded use of drone strikes in counterterrorism efforts, as well as reports of domestic surveillance programs, drew criticism from civil libertarians and human rights activists, who argued these measures eroded privacy and due process.</li></ul> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Post-Presidency: Influence and Advocacy</h2> <p>Since leaving office, Barack Obama has remained an influential figure on the world stage. Through the Obama Foundation, he and Michelle Obama have focused on empowering young leaders, promoting civic engagement, and strengthening democratic institutions globally. Obama has also authored bestselling memoirs, delivered widely viewed speeches, and lent his voice to causes such as climate change, racial equity, and accessible education.</p> <p>His presence on social media remains strong, and public appearances often draw enthusiastic crowds. Even as political divisions persist, Obama commands significant respect for his calm demeanor, thoughtful analysis, and ability to inspire hope.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Legacy: A Balanced Perspective</h2> <p>Barack Obama’s legacy is both celebrated and debated. Supporters laud him as a transformational leader whose tenure expanded rights, boosted America’s image abroad, and navigated crises with grace. Critics argue his incrementalism at times compromised bold action and left issues such as immigration and gun control unresolved.</p> <p>Still, Obama’s story—from a biracial child in Hawaii to the first African American president—stands as a testament to what’s possible in America. His journey has motivated millions to dream bigger, work harder, and serve with integrity.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="691" height="691" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543re.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4231" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543re.jpg 691w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543re-300x300.jpg 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/34543re-150x150.jpg 150w" sizes="(max-width: 691px) 100vw, 691px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Happy 64th, Mr. President</h2> <p>On this 64th birthday, the world isn’t just celebrating the life of a former president—it’s celebrating the ideals of perseverance, dignity, and hope that Barack Obama represents. As social media trends with birthday greetings from Michelle and others, we remember a leader whose words and deeds challenged us to “be the change we seek.”</p> <p>May this new year bring Barack Obama health, happiness, and many more opportunities to contribute to the ongoing story of progress. Happy Birthday, President Obama!</p> <p><strong>Meta Description</strong>:<br>Celebrate Barack Obama’s 64th birthday with a comprehensive look at his remarkable life—his rise from humble roots, transformative presidency, and enduring influence. Explore his major achievements, his post-presidency advocacy, and the lessons from his successes and challenges.</p> <p><strong>Hashtags</strong>:<br>#BarackObama #Obama64 #HappyBirthdayObama #PresidentialLegacy #Leadership #YesWeCan #ObamaAchievements #HistoryMakers</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/barack-obamas-64th-birthday/">Happy 64th Birthday, Barack Obama: A Life of Leadership, Legacy, and Lessons</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/barack-obamas-64th-birthday/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>The Kashmir Dispute: 5th August – “Youm-e-Istehsal”</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/kashmir-dispute-pakistans-youm-e-istehsal/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/kashmir-dispute-pakistans-youm-e-istehsal/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 05:39:31 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sub Continent]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Article370]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#HumanRights]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IIOJK]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaOccupation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#KashmirDispute]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#KashmiriRights]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanSolidarity]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Plebiscite]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#UNSCResolutions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#YoumEIstehsal]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4222</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(Ayesha Mahnoor) Introduction The Kashmir dispute, one of the world’s oldest unresolved conflicts, remains a festering wound on the conscience of international law. For instance, India’s illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), cemented by its unilateral revocation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, has stripped the region of its special status, defying United...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/kashmir-dispute-pakistans-youm-e-istehsal/">The Kashmir Dispute: 5th August – “Youm-e-Istehsal”</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<em>Ayesha Mahnoor</em>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>The <strong>Kashmir dispute</strong>, one of the world’s oldest unresolved conflicts, remains a festering wound on the conscience of international law. For instance, India’s illegal occupation of <strong>Jammu and Kashmir </strong>(IIOJK), cemented by its unilateral revocation of <strong>Article 370 on August 5, 2019</strong>, has stripped the region of its special status, defying<strong> United Nations Security Council (UNSC)</strong> resolutions and the promise of a plebiscite made by India’s first Prime Minister, <strong>Jawaharlal Nehru</strong>. Consequently, Pakistan observes August 5 as <strong>Youm-e-Istehsal</strong>, a day of mourning and solidarity with Kashmiris enduring India’s exploitation. This article chronicles the historical roots of the dispute, exposes India’s constitutional subterfuge, and celebrates Pakistan’s unwavering support for Kashmiri self-determination. Moreover, it examines the global response, legal violations, and lessons for third world nations, urging the world to uphold justice for Kashmir.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Background of Kashmir Dispute</h2> <p>The Kashmir dispute traces its origins to the 1947 partition of British India, when the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, predominantly Muslim, faced a contentious accession. For example, Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu ruler, signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, allegedly under duress, aligning with India amid tribal incursions from Pakistan. However, Pakistan and Kashmiris contest the document’s legitimacy, citing its coercive nature and lack of public consent. Consequently, the first Indo-Pak war erupted, ending with a UN-brokered ceasefire in 1949, establishing the Line of Control (LoC). The UNSC Resolution 47 (1948) mandated a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future, a promise Nehru reaffirmed in 1948, stating, “We have given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and the world, to hold a referendum.”</p> <p>Yet, India has consistently obstructed this plebiscite, prolonging the dispute. For instance, UNSC resolutions, including those of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, reiterated the need for a “free and impartial plebiscite” under UN auspices. India’s refusal to demilitarise, a prerequisite for the plebiscite, has rendered these resolutions unimplementable. Moreover, India’s 1952 agreement with Sheikh Abdullah’s government, granting Jammu and Kashmir autonomy under <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/11/whats-article-370-what-to-know-about-india-top-court-verdict-on-kashmir">Article 370</a>, was a temporary measure to facilitate the plebiscite. However, India’s subsequent erosion of this autonomy, culminating in its 2019 revocation, betrays both Kashmiris and international law. Thus, the dispute, rooted in India’s forcible occupation, remains a threat to regional peace, as evidenced by conflicts in 1965, 1971, 1999, and the 2025 <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/truth-finally-revealed/">Operation Sindoor</a> clash.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">India’s Revocation of Article 370</h2> <p>On August 5, 2019, India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, revoked Article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status. For example, this constitutional provision, enacted in 1949, granted the state its own constitution, flag, and autonomy over internal affairs, except defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Additionally, Article 35A protected Kashmiri residents’ rights to property and residency, preserving the region’s Muslim-majority demographic. The revocation, executed via a Presidential Order, superseded the 1954 order and applied India’s constitution fully to Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcated the state into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh—directly governed from New Delhi.</p> <p>This move, upheld by India’s Supreme Court in December 2023, was justified as a “constitutional correction” to integrate Kashmir and boost development. However, critics, including Pakistani leaders and Kashmiri activists, denounce it as illegal. For instance, the revocation bypassed the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly, dissolved in 1957, which was required to approve changes to Article 370. Constitutional expert A.G. Noorani called it “utterly unconstitutional” and a “fraud” on India’s constitution. Moreover, India’s actions violated UNSC resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits demographic changes in occupied territories. Specifically, the 2020 Adaptation of State Laws Order allowed non-Kashmiris to settle in IIOJK, aiming to alter its Muslim-majority character, a move likened by Pakistan’s President Arif Alvi to Israel’s demographic tactics.</p> <p>India’s crackdown accompanying the revocation was draconian. For example, New Delhi deployed 35,000 additional troops, imposed a communication blackout, and detained over 3,800 political leaders and activists under the Public Safety Act. Internet services were cut for 18 months, and curfews stifled dissent. Consequently, Kashmiri voices, like former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, decried the move as a “betrayal” of the 1947 accession trust, leaving residents in “absolute shock and panic.” Thus, India’s unilateral actions not only defied international law but also humiliated the Kashmiri people, reinforcing Pakistan’s claim of illegal occupation.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pakistan’s Response and Youm-e-Istehsal</h2> <p>Pakistan’s response to the 2019 revocation was swift and resolute, reflecting its unwavering commitment to Kashmiris. For instance, Pakistan downgraded diplomatic ties with India, suspending trade and cooperative initiatives. Prime Minister Imran Khan condemned India’s actions, likening them to “Nazi Germany’s tactics” for their oppressive nature. Moreover, Pakistan instituted Youm-e-Istehsal on August 5, a national day of mourning and solidarity with Kashmiris. Observed annually, it decries India’s exploitation and reaffirms Pakistan’s support for Kashmiri self-determination. For example, rallies, seminars, and media campaigns highlight India’s human rights abuses and the need for a UN-mandated plebiscite.</p> <p>Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts have been robust. For instance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has consistently raised the Kashmir issue at the UN, citing over 20 UNSC resolutions affirming the right to self-determination. In 2025, Pakistan’s chairing of the UNSC Taliban Sanctions Committee amplified its voice, countering India’s narrative. Additionally, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has adopted resolutions, such as No. 10/47-POL in 2020, rejecting India’s actions and supporting Kashmir’s cause. Pakistan’s 2003 Ceasefire Understanding, reaffirmed in 2021, demonstrates its commitment to peace along the LoC, despite India’s provocations, including the 2025 Operation Sindoor. Thus, Pakistan’s principled stance, rooted in international law, positions it as the true advocate for Kashmiri rights.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">International Perspectives on Kashmir Dispute</h2> <p>The international response to India’s revocation of Article 370 has been mixed, reflecting geopolitical biases. For example, allies like Russia and Bhutan supported India, framing the revocation as an internal matter within its constitutional framework. Russia cited the Simla Agreement (1972) and Lahore Declaration (1999), urging bilateral resolution. Similarly, Bangladesh called it India’s “domestic affair.” However, Pakistan garnered support from the OIC and neutral voices like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose 2018 and 2019 reports documented India’s “systemic” abuses in IIOJK, including extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detentions.</p> <p>China, a key player, condemned India’s actions, particularly the creation of Ladakh, which includes Aksai Chin, claimed by China. For instance, Beijing’s issuance of stapled visas to IIOJK residents signals its view of Kashmir as disputed. Western powers, like the U.S. and UK, have remained cautious, urging restraint but avoiding direct criticism of India. The UN Secretary-General called for “maximum restraint” in 2019, highlighting the dispute’s international dimension. However, the UNSC’s permanent members have failed to enforce resolutions, exposing their selective commitment to international law. Consequently, Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach, backed by China and the OIC, underscores India’s isolation on moral and legal grounds.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Legal and Human Rights Violations</h2> <p>India’s actions in IIOJK constitute flagrant violations of international law. For example, UNSC resolutions, including Resolution 47 (1948), mandate a plebiscite, which India has obstructed for 77 years. The revocation of Article 370, without Kashmiri consent, violates the Instrument of Accession’s terms and the UN Charter. Moreover, the Fourth Geneva Convention’s Article 49(6) prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population into occupied territory, yet India’s 2020 laws enable non-Kashmiri settlement, aiming to alter IIOJK’s Muslim-majority demographic.</p> <p>Human rights abuses have escalated since 2019. For instance, Amnesty International documented “grave abuses” in IIOJK, including unlawful killings, torture, and restrictions on free expression. Over 900,000 Indian troops, the highest concentration globally, enforce a war-like environment. Kashmiri youth face unemployment (18%, double India’s average) and repression, with protests labeled “anti-national.” The UN’s 2019 report indicted India for excessive force, including pellet gunshots and cordon-and-search operations. Consequently, India’s actions, condemned by Kashmiri leaders like Omar Abdullah as a “total betrayal,” violate both international law and human dignity.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Nations</h2> <p>Pakistan’s steadfast support for Kashmir offers valuable lessons for third world nations navigating geopolitical challenges. For instance, Pakistan’s diplomatic agility, leveraging the UN and OIC, demonstrates how smaller nations can amplify their voice. By securing China’s support and chairing UNSC committees, Pakistan counters India’s narrative despite economic constraints. Moreover, its observance of Youm-e-Istehsal reflects the power of soft diplomacy, rallying domestic and global support. For example, third world nations can emulate Pakistan’s use of multilateral forums to highlight injustices, as seen in its 2025 UNSC role.</p> <p>However, challenges persist. Pakistan’s GDP, one-tenth India’s, limits its leverage. Yet, its electronic warfare success in the 2025 Operation Sindoor clash shows how cost-effective strategies can counter larger powers. Additionally, Pakistan’s cricket diplomacy, participating in the 2025 WCL despite India’s boycott, underscores cultural resilience. Thus, third world nations should blend diplomacy, military innovation, and soft power to challenge hegemonic narratives, as Pakistan does for Kashmir.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>The Kashmir dispute remains a stark reminder of India’s betrayal of its plebiscite promise and illegal occupation of IIOJK. For instance, the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, coupled with demographic changes and human rights abuses, violates UNSC resolutions and international law. Pakistan’s Youm-e-Istehsal embodies its unwavering solidarity with Kashmiris, exposing India’s exploitation. Consequently, Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts, backed by China and the OIC, contrast with India’s isolation and arrogance. Third world nations can draw inspiration from Pakistan’s resilience, advocating for justice through global forums. The world must honor the Kashmiri right to self-determination, ensuring Nehru’s broken promise is fulfilled.</p> <p></p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"></h2> <p></p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"></h2> <p></p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/kashmir-dispute-pakistans-youm-e-istehsal/">The Kashmir Dispute: 5th August – “Youm-e-Istehsal”</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/kashmir-dispute-pakistans-youm-e-istehsal/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>F-35, Su-57, and J-35: A Comparative Analysis for India and Pakistan’s Stealth Fighter Aspirations</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/comparison-of-f-35-su-57-and-j-35/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/comparison-of-f-35-su-57-and-j-35/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:18:52 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[China]]></category> <category><![CDATA[India]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Military Technology]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sub Continent]]></category> <category><![CDATA[United States]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#F35]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndianAirForce]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#J35]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#MilitaryAviation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanAirForce]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#SouthAsia]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#StealthFighters]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Su57]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4214</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Khalid Masood) Introduction In the evolving landscape of modern warfare, fifth-generation stealth fighter jets represent the pinnacle of air combat technology, blending low observability, advanced avionics, and multirole capabilities. For instance, the U.S. F-35 Lightning II, Russia’s Su-57 Felon, and China’s J-35 (also known as FC-31) dominate discussions as India and Pakistan seek to...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/comparison-of-f-35-su-57-and-j-35/">F-35, Su-57, and J-35: A Comparative Analysis for India and Pakistan’s Stealth Fighter Aspirations</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<em><strong>By Khalid Masood</strong></em>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>In the evolving landscape of modern warfare, fifth-generation stealth fighter jets represent the pinnacle of air combat technology, blending low observability, advanced avionics, and multirole capabilities. For instance, the U.S. F-35 Lightning II, Russia’s Su-57 Felon, and China’s J-35 (also known as FC-31) dominate discussions as India and Pakistan seek to modernise their air forces to counter regional threats. Specifically, the Indian Air Force (IAF), grappling with a shrinking fleet of 31 squadrons against a sanctioned 42, faces pressure from China’s J-20 expansion and Pakistan’s J-35 acquisition plans. Similarly, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), bolstered by Chinese ties, aims to induct the J-35 but faces geopolitical barriers to accessing Western options like the F-35. Consequently, both nations confront complex decisions, balancing cost, capability, and strategic alignment. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the F-35, Su-57, and J-35, comparing their characteristics, maintenance costs, and suitability for the IAF and PAF, while offering viable interim options to bridge the stealth gap until indigenous or optimal solutions are available.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context</h2> <p>The quest for fifth-generation stealth fighters emerged from the need to dominate contested airspace in an era of advanced radar and missile systems. For example, the U.S. pioneered stealth with the F-22 Raptor, followed by the F-35, designed as a multirole platform for global allies. Russia’s Su-57, developed under the PAK FA programme since 1999, aimed to counter Western dominance, while China’s J-35, initially a private venture by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, evolved into a naval and export-focused stealth jet. In South Asia, India and Pakistan’s rivalry, marked by conflicts like the 2025 <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/truth-finally-revealed/">Operation Sindoor</a>, underscores the urgency of acquiring stealth capabilities. For instance, India’s IAF, reliant on ageing Soviet-era MiG-21s and Su-30MKIs, faces a “stealth gap” as China targets 1,000 J-20s by 2030 and Pakistan pursues 30–40 J-35s. Similarly, Pakistan’s PAF, equipped with JF-17s and F-16s, seeks to counter India’s Rafales and potential stealth acquisitions. Thus, the F-35, Su-57, and J-35 represent critical options, each shaped by distinct design philosophies and geopolitical realities.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Detailed Comparison of F-35, Su-57, and J-35</h2> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">F-35 Lightning II</h3> <p>The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, developed under the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, is a family of single-seat, single-engine, fifth-generation multirole fighters. For instance, its three variants—F-35A (conventional takeoff), F-35B (short takeoff/vertical landing), and F-35C (carrier-based)—offer versatility for air-to-air, air-to-ground, and intelligence missions. Specifically, the F-35’s radar cross-section (RCS) of 0.001–0.005 m², roughly the size of a golf ball, is achieved through precise airframe geometry, S-shaped intakes, and radar-absorbent coatings. Moreover, its AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda electronic warfare system jams enemy sensors, while 360-degree cameras and advanced avionics, described by General David Goldfein as “a computer that flies,” enable unmatched situational awareness. The F-35’s armament includes internal bays for stealthy carriage of AIM-120 and AIM-9X missiles, with a 5,700 kg payload capacity. However, its single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine limits speed to Mach 1.6, and it lacks thrust-vectoring, reducing manoeuvrability compared to twin-engine designs.</p> <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="630" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/F-35-formation-1024x630.avif" alt="" class="wp-image-4215" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/F-35-formation-1024x630.avif 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/F-35-formation-300x185.avif 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/F-35-formation-768x472.avif 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/F-35-formation-1536x945.avif 1536w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/F-35-formation-2048x1260.avif 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">A formation of US F-35 fighter jets</figcaption></figure> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Su-57 Felon</h3> <p>Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57, developed since 1999, is a twin-engine, multirole stealth fighter emphasizing “functional stealth” over absolute low observability. For example, its RCS, estimated at 0.1–1 m², is 20–200 times larger than the F-35’s, due to less optimised aft fuselage shaping and cost-driven design compromises. Nevertheless, the Su-57 excels in supermanoeuvrability, with thrust-vectoring AL-51F-1 engines enabling complex aerial manoeuvres and speeds up to Mach 2. Additionally, its K-77M and R-37M missiles offer beyond-visual-range (BVR) dominance, and integration with S-70 Okhotnik drones enhances its “loyal wingman” capability. However, production is limited—only 22 units by 2024—and combat experience is minimal, with unconfirmed reports of two Su-57s damaged in Ukraine. The export Su-57E, offered to India with source code access, aligns with India’s “Make in India” initiative but faces reliability concerns due to Russia’s after-sales support issues.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="682" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SU-57-1024x682.avif" alt="" class="wp-image-4216" style="width:637px;height:auto" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SU-57-1024x682.avif 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SU-57-300x200.avif 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SU-57-768x512.avif 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SU-57-1536x1024.avif 1536w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SU-57-2048x1365.avif 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">SU-57 of Russia</figcaption></figure></div> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">J-35 (FC-31)</h3> <p>China’s Shenyang J-35, initially the FC-31, is a twin-engine, fifth-generation stealth fighter designed for export and naval operations. For instance, its RCS, while not publicly disclosed, is reduced through internal weapons bays, serrated nozzles, and radar-absorbent materials, likely approaching the Su-57’s 0.1 m² range. Powered by WS-13 engines (with WS-19 upgrades planned), the J-35 reaches Mach 1.8 and aims for supercruise capability. Its multirole design supports PL-17 BVR missiles and a 2,000 kg internal payload, expandable to 8,000 kg externally. However, its development, only recently endorsed by the PLA, lags behind the F-35, with initial operational capability expected by 2026. Pakistan’s reported acquisition of 30–40 J-35s, though denied by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, signals China’s push to compete with Western platforms, offering a cost-effective alternative for non-NATO nations.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="576" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/J-35-1024x576.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4217" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/J-35-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/J-35-300x169.jpg 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/J-35-768x432.jpg 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/J-35.jpg 1280w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">J-35 (FC-31) of China</figcaption></figure></div> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Comparative Technical Analysis</h3> <ul class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Stealth</strong>: The F-35 leads with its near-invisible RCS (0.001–0.005 m²), followed by the J-35 (estimated 0.1 m²) and Su-57 (0.1–1 m²). The F-35’s integrated stealth design, using advanced coatings and electronic countermeasures, outperforms the Su-57’s frontal-focused stealth and the J-35’s evolving capabilities. However, the Su-57’s partial stealth is sufficient within Russia’s defensive doctrine, relying on ground-based air defenses.</li> <li><strong>Manoeuvrability</strong>: The Su-57’s thrust-vectoring engines and Mach 2 speed outshine the F-35’s Mach 1.6 and limited agility. The J-35, with planned WS-19 engines, aims for supercruise but lacks thrust-vectoring, placing it between the two. For instance, India’s Himalayan terrain and Pakistan’s border skirmishes demand agility, giving the Su-57 an edge.</li> <li><strong>Avionics and Sensors</strong>: The F-35’s AN/ASQ-239 and 360-degree sensor suite provide superior situational awareness, enhanced by NATO interoperability. The Su-57’s N036 AESA radar and AI-assisted systems are potent but less proven, while the J-35’s avionics, still maturing, lag behind. Consequently, the F-35 excels in networked warfare, critical for both nations’ complex threat environments.</li> <li><strong>Payload and Versatility</strong>: The Su-57 and J-35, with twin engines, offer larger payloads (10,000 kg and 8,000 kg, respectively) than the F-35 (5,700 kg). However, the F-35’s internal bays ensure stealthy strikes, unlike the Su-57 and J-35, which rely on external mounts for heavier loads, compromising stealth.</li></ul> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Maintenance Costs and Operational Challenges</h2> <p>Maintenance costs are a critical factor for resource-constrained air forces like the IAF and PAF. For instance:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>F-35</strong>: The F-35’s per-hour flight cost is approximately $40,000, driven by its complex stealth coatings, advanced avionics, and maintenance-intensive systems. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates a $2 trillion lifecycle cost over 66 years, with a 55% mission-capable rate in 2023 due to spare parts shortages and engine issues. Specifically, 30 hours of maintenance per flight hour, coupled with 10,000 spare parts backlogged, limits availability.</li> <li><strong>Su-57</strong>: The Su-57’s maintenance cost is estimated at $15,000–$20,000 per flight hour, reflecting Russia’s simpler design philosophy. However, its low production (22 units by 2024) and lack of combat testing raise reliability concerns. For example, shoddy production quality and Russia’s poor after-sales support, as experienced with India’s Su-30MKIs, pose risks.</li> <li><strong>J-35</strong>: While exact costs are unavailable, the J-35’s estimated $10,000–$15,000 per flight hour reflects China’s focus on affordability. Its twin-engine design and newer systems suggest moderate maintenance demands, but limited operational data and reliance on evolving WS-19 engines raise uncertainties. Pakistan’s experience with JF-17s suggests China’s support is reliable but less sophisticated than Western standards.</li></ul> <p>Consequently, the F-35’s high costs and maintenance complexity challenge both nations’ budgets, while the Su-57 and J-35 offer affordability but risk reliability and performance gaps.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Suitability for India and Pakistan</h2> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Indian Air Force</h3> <p>India’s IAF, operating 31 squadrons against a sanctioned 42, faces threats from China’s J-20 fleet and Pakistan’s potential J-35 acquisition. For instance, the IAF’s ageing Su-30MKIs and MiG-21s struggle against modern stealth threats, and its indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) won’t enter service until 2035–2036. The F-35 offers unmatched stealth and avionics but faces hurdles: its $82.5–$110 million unit cost and $40,000 per-hour cost strain India’s defence budget, already stretched by Rafale purchases. Moreover, U.S. refusal to share source code or co-production rights clashes with Modi’s “Make in India” initiative, and end-user monitoring raises sovereignty concerns. The Su-57, at $35–$40 million per unit and with source code access, aligns with India’s self-reliance goals and integrates with existing Russian systems. However, its limited production, unproven combat record, and Russia’s sanctions-related supply issues deter adoption. The J-35, while cost-effective at $70 million, is unlikely due to India’s rivalry with China and concerns over reverse-engineering risks. Thus, India’s diverse terrain and two-front threat require a balance of stealth, affordability, and local integration, making the Su-57 a pragmatic but risky choice.</p> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Pakistan Air Force</h3> <p>Pakistan’s PAF, equipped with JF-17s and F-16s, seeks to counter India’s Rafales and potential stealth acquisitions. For example, reports of a 30–40 J-35 deal, though unconfirmed, align with Pakistan’s deep Chinese ties via CPEC and prior JF-17 success. The J-35’s $70 million unit cost and $10,000–$15,000 per-hour cost fit Pakistan’s budget, and its stealth and multirole capabilities enhance deterrence against India. However, its developmental stage and unproven systems pose risks, especially in high-intensity conflicts. The F-35 is unattainable due to U.S. export controls, given Pakistan’s Chinese alignment and nuclear proliferation history. Similarly, the Su-57 is unlikely, as Russia prioritises India and lacks export infrastructure for Pakistan. Consequently, the J-35 is Pakistan’s most viable option, leveraging China’s reliable support, though its immaturity demands interim solutions.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Viable Interim Options</h2> <p>Both nations face delays in acquiring or developing stealth fighters, necessitating interim solutions to bridge the gap.</p> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">India</h3> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Expand Rafale Fleet</strong>: The IAF’s 36 Rafales, proven in Operation Sindoor, offer 4.5-generation capabilities with low RCS and advanced AESA radars. Ordering 114 more under the Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) programme, with technology transfer, aligns with “Make in India” and counters immediate threats. Cost: $20 billion.</li> <li><strong>Accelerate Tejas Programme</strong>: The indigenous Tejas Mark 1A (83 ordered, 97 planned) and Mark 2 provide agile, multirole platforms. Fast-tracking deliveries, despite delays, bolsters squadron strength. Cost: $5–7 billion for 180 units.</li> <li><strong>AMCA Development Push</strong>: Investing $2 billion annually to expedite AMCA prototypes (targeted for 2028–2029) ensures a long-term stealth solution, leveraging Su-57 technology if acquired.</li></ol> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="683" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HAL_Tejas_LA-5018_of_Squadron_18_Flying_Bullets-1024x683.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4219" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HAL_Tejas_LA-5018_of_Squadron_18_Flying_Bullets-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HAL_Tejas_LA-5018_of_Squadron_18_Flying_Bullets-300x200.jpg 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HAL_Tejas_LA-5018_of_Squadron_18_Flying_Bullets-768x512.jpg 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HAL_Tejas_LA-5018_of_Squadron_18_Flying_Bullets-1536x1025.jpg 1536w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HAL_Tejas_LA-5018_of_Squadron_18_Flying_Bullets-2048x1366.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Indian HAL Taja fighter jet</figcaption></figure></div> <h3 class="wp-block-heading">Pakistan</h3> <ol class="wp-block-list"><li><strong>Enhance JF-17 Block III</strong>: Upgrading JF-17s with AESA radars and PL-15 missiles improves BVR capabilities. Cost: $2–3 billion for 50 upgraded units, leveraging existing Chinese support.</li> <li><strong>Procure J-10C</strong>: Acquiring 36–50 J-10C fighters, proven in Operation Sindoor, offers 4.5-generation performance with low RCS and WS-10 engines. Cost: $2.5 billion, strengthening China-Pakistan ties.</li> <li><strong>Collaborate on KAAN</strong>: Partnering with Turkey on the KAAN fifth-generation fighter, already in progress, provides a future stealth option. Co-development costs ($1–2 billion) are viable with Chinese backing.</li></ol> <figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="683" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat-1-1024x683.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-4220" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat-1-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat-1-300x200.jpg 300w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat-1-768x512.jpg 768w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Pakistan_Air_Force_JF-17_Thunder_flies_in_front_of_the_26660_ft_high_Nanga_Parbat-1.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">PAF’s JF-17 flying 26,660 ft (8,126 m) high <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanga_Parbat">Nanga Parbat</a></figcaption></figure> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>The F-35, Su-57, and J-35 represent distinct approaches to fifth-generation stealth, each with trade-offs for India and Pakistan. For instance, the F-35’s superior stealth and avionics come with prohibitive costs and geopolitical constraints, making it a distant prospect for both. The Su-57, affordable and aligned with India’s Russian ties, offers source code access but suffers from production and reliability issues. The J-35, Pakistan’s likely choice, balances cost and capability but lacks operational maturity. Consequently, India should expand Rafales and Tejas while accelerating AMCA, while Pakistan should upgrade JF-17s and procure J-10Cs, with KAAN as a long-term goal. Both nations must prioritise fiscal prudence and strategic autonomy to counter regional threats effectively.</p> <p> </p> <p></p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/comparison-of-f-35-su-57-and-j-35/">F-35, Su-57, and J-35: A Comparative Analysis for India and Pakistan’s Stealth Fighter Aspirations</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/comparison-of-f-35-su-57-and-j-35/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Pakistan’s 2025 Diplomatic Triumph: Outmanoeuvring India in Washington and Beijing</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/pakistans-2025-diplomatic-triumph/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/pakistans-2025-diplomatic-triumph/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:03:25 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Geo Economics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[India]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category> <category><![CDATA[United States]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#CPEC]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaDebacle]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaFailure]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#ModiForeignPolicy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#OperationSindoor]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanDiplomacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanTriumph]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#SouthAsia]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#USDilDeal]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4207</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Khalid Masood) Introduction In the high-stakes arena of global diplomacy, Pakistan has executed a masterstroke, securing a landmark oil partnership with the United States while deepening ties with China, all amidst the volatile geopolitics of 2025. For instance, President Donald Trump’s August 1, 2025, Truth Social announcement of a U.S.-Pakistan deal to develop Pakistan’s...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/pakistans-2025-diplomatic-triumph/">Pakistan’s 2025 Diplomatic Triumph: Outmanoeuvring India in Washington and Beijing</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<strong><em>By Khalid Masood</em></strong>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>In the high-stakes arena of global diplomacy,<strong> Pakistan</strong> has executed a masterstroke, securing a landmark oil partnership with the <strong>United States</strong> while deepening ties with <strong>China</strong>, all amidst the volatile geopolitics of 2025. For instance, <strong>President Donald Trump</strong>’s August 1, 2025, Truth Social announcement of a U.S.-Pakistan deal to develop Pakistan’s vast offshore oil reserves stunned the world, particularly India, which faced a stinging 25% tariff and public rebuke from Washington. Consequently, this triumph, coupled with Pakistan’s enduring alliance with Beijing through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), showcases Islamabad’s unparalleled ability to navigate the treacherous waters of superpower rivalry. In contrast, India’s Modi government, once lauded as a diplomatic juggernaut, reels from a series of blunders, notably its failure to garner global support post-Operation Sindoor. This article celebrates Pakistan’s diplomatic dexterity, exposes India’s arrogance and foreign policy failures, and draws lessons for third world nations navigating great power dynamics.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context</h2> <p>Pakistan and India, born from the 1947 partition, have been locked in a rivalry defined by wars (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999) and disputes over Kashmir. For example, the 2008 Mumbai attacks halted bilateral cricket, reflecting India’s penchant for politicising cultural ties. Moreover, the May 2025 Indo-Pakistan conflict, triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam attack, saw India’s <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/indias-sindoor-misadventure/">Operation Sindoor</a>—a retaliatory strike on alleged terror sites in Pakistan—backfire diplomatically. Pakistan’s robust counterattack, damaging Indian airbases, exposed India’s military overreach. Consequently, India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and failure to secure global condemnation of Pakistan underscored its diplomatic isolation.</p> <p>Pakistan, however, has long balanced relations with Washington and Beijing. For instance, during the Cold War, Pakistan leveraged U.S. aid against Soviet-aligned India while cultivating ties with China, a mutual rival of India. The CPEC, part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has since 2013 funnelled billions into Pakistan’s infrastructure, cementing Beijing’s role as a strategic partner. Simultaneously, Pakistan maintained U.S. ties through cooperation on Afghanistan and counterterrorism. Thus, the 2025 oil deal with the U.S. builds on Pakistan’s historical adeptness at playing both sides, contrasting sharply with India’s faltering global outreach under Modi.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pakistan’s Diplomatic Triumph</h2> <p>On August 1, 2025, <a href="https://x.com/usembislamabad/status/1951196657871208760/photo/1">Trump announced </a>a transformative U.S.-Pakistan oil partnership via Truth Social, proclaiming, “We have just concluded a Deal with the Country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Oil Reserves.” For instance, The Dawn reported Pakistan’s offshore reserves could be among the world’s largest, potentially transforming it into an energy exporter. This deal, involving American capital and technology, marks a diplomatic coup for Islamabad. Moreover, Trump’s pointed jab—“maybe they’ll be selling Oil to India someday!”—humiliated New Delhi, especially alongside a 25% tariff on Indian exports compared to Pakistan’s 19%.</p> <p>Pakistan’s triumph extends to Beijing, where its CPEC partnership thrives. For example, China’s $62 billion investment in Pakistani infrastructure, including Gwadar Port, has deepened since 2013. In May 2025, China provided military and diplomatic support during Operation Sindoor, with J-10C fighters downing Indian jets, bolstering Pakistan’s defense. Consequently, Pakistan’s ability to secure U.S. investment without alienating China reflects a diplomatic tightrope act. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar’s July 2025 visits to Beijing and Washington, engaging Xi Jinping and Marco Rubio, ensured both powers saw Pakistan as indispensable.</p> <p>Furthermore, Pakistan’s elevation to chair the UNSC Taliban Sanctions Committee in 2025, backed by China, underscores its global influence. Despite India’s lobbying, Pakistan secured this role, shaping counterterrorism narratives. Thus, Islamabad’s diplomats, led by Field Marshal Asim Munir’s strategic vision, have outmanoeuvred India, leveraging both superpowers’ interests to Pakistan’s advantage.</p> <div class="wp-block-image"><figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="594" height="586" src="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435trgh.png" alt="" class="wp-image-4208" srcset="https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435trgh.png 594w, https://khalidmasood.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/5435trgh-300x296.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 594px) 100vw, 594px" /></figure></div> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">India’s Diplomatic Debacle</h2> <p>India’s Modi government, once hailed as a global powerhouse, has stumbled spectacularly. For instance, post-Operation Sindoor, India dispatched seven delegations to 33 capitals, seeking to frame Pakistan as a terrorism sponsor. However, no country condemned Pakistan by name, and key allies like the U.S. and Gulf states urged de-escalation, not support. Specifically, The Diplomat noted that India’s narrative failed to land, with no strategic partner endorsing its claims. Consequently, India’s diplomatic offensive, meant to isolate Pakistan, instead exposed its isolation.</p> <p>Moreover, Trump’s mediation in the May 2025 ceasefire, confirmed by Pakistan but denied by India’s S. Jaishankar, humiliated New Delhi. For example, Trump’s claim of halting Sindoor 26 times via trade threats, coupled with his lunch invitation to Munir, underscored India’s reliance on U.S. pressure, contradicting its “strategic autonomy” rhetoric. Additionally, India’s stock markets plummeted after Trump’s tariff announcement, reflecting economic vulnerability. Thus, India’s failure to secure global backing, coupled with public chastisement from Washington, marks a diplomatic debacle, rooted in Modi’s overreliance on domestic optics.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Weaknesses in Modi’s Foreign Policy</h2> <p>Modi’s foreign policy, once touted as visionary, has unravelled under scrutiny. First, its aggressive posturing lacks diplomatic finesse. For instance, Operation Sindoor’s 17-day delay after Pahalgam exposed intelligence failures, as Congress MP Rahul Gandhi noted in the July 2025 parliamentary debate. India’s claim of a “precise” strike was debunked by Pakistan’s retaliation, damaging Indian airbases. Moreover, Modi’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a critical lifeline for Pakistan, alienated neutral nations like Qatar, which backed India’s terrorism concerns but urged restraint.</p> <p>Second, Modi’s reliance on spectacle over substance has backfired. For example, sending delegations to Bogotá and Ljubljana—countries with minimal stakes in South Asia—reeked of desperation, as Kashmir Media Service argued. These missions, filled with BJP loyalists, failed to sway global opinion, unlike Pakistan’s targeted diplomacy in Beijing and Washington. Furthermore, Modi’s “vishwaguru” (world teacher) rhetoric clashed with India’s inability to counter Pakistan’s UNSC role, highlighting a disconnect between domestic bravado and international reality.</p> <p>Third, Modi’s alienation of traditional allies is stark. For instance, Canada’s refusal to invite Modi to the 2025 G7 summit, per Foreign Policy, reflects growing unease with India’s human rights record and Kashmir policies. Similarly, Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, hosting millions of Indian workers, prioritised regional stability over India’s narrative, brokering de-escalation with Pakistan. Consequently, Modi’s hyper-nationalist approach, as Sushant Singh noted, assumes domestic media control can translate globally, a miscalculation that left India isolated.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Countries</h2> <p>Pakistan’s diplomatic triumph offers vital lessons for third world nations like itself, navigating great power rivalries. For instance, Pakistan’s ability to secure U.S. investment while maintaining China’s trust demonstrates the power of strategic ambiguity. By quietly engaging both powers, Pakistan avoided the pitfalls of choosing sides, unlike India, which leaned heavily on Western alliances only to face tariffs. Moreover, Pakistan’s success in the UNSC, chairing key committees, shows how smaller nations can leverage multilateral forums to amplify influence.</p> <p>However, challenges remain. For example, Pakistan’s economic constraints, with a GDP one-tenth India’s, necessitate prudent resource allocation. Investing in soft power, as seen in Pakistan’s resilient 2025 WCL cricket participation despite India’s boycott, can counter larger rivals. Additionally, Pakistan’s electronic warfare success in May 2025, disrupting Indian operations, highlights the value of cost-effective defense strategies. Thus, third world nations should emulate Pakistan’s balanced diplomacy, blending military resilience with strategic outreach, to thrive in a multipolar world.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>Pakistan’s diplomatic triumph in 2025, securing a transformative U.S. oil partnership while deepening ties with China, marks a watershed moment. For instance, Trump’s public endorsement and Pakistan’s UNSC role underscore Islamabad’s nimble diplomacy, outshining India’s faltering efforts. In contrast, Modi’s foreign policy, marred by Operation Sindoor’s fallout and global isolation, exposes India’s arrogance and strategic missteps. Consequently, Pakistan’s ability to dance between Washington and Beijing, while rattling New Delhi, cements its status as a diplomatic powerhouse. Third world nations should take note: in global politics, savvy trumps sentiment, and Pakistan stands undefeated on the diplomatic tightrope.</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/pakistans-2025-diplomatic-triumph/">Pakistan’s 2025 Diplomatic Triumph: Outmanoeuvring India in Washington and Beijing</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/pakistans-2025-diplomatic-triumph/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>India’s Operation Sindoor Debate: Exposing India’s Flawed Narrative and Pakistan’s Principled Stance</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/indias-operation-sindoor-debate/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/indias-operation-sindoor-debate/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2025 14:25:40 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[India]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sub Continent]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Diplomacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndianParliament]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaPakistanTensions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#OperationSindoor]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PahalgamAttack]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanForeignOffice]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanResilience]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#SouthAsia]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Modi]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4204</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(Ayesha Mahnoor) Introduction In July 2025, the Indian Parliament’s Monsoon Session erupted into a fiery debate over Operation Sindoor, India’s aggressive military strikes on May 7, 2025, targeting alleged terror sites in Pakistan following the April 22 Pahalgam attack. For instance, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, hailed the...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/indias-operation-sindoor-debate/">India’s Operation Sindoor Debate: Exposing India’s Flawed Narrative and Pakistan’s Principled Stance</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<strong><em>Ayesha Mahnoor</em></strong>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>In July 2025, the <strong>Indian Parliament’s Monsoon Session</strong> erupted into a fiery debate over <strong>Operation Sindoor</strong>, India’s aggressive military strikes on May 7, 2025, targeting alleged terror sites in <strong>Pakistan </strong>following the April 22 Pahalgam attack. For instance, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister <strong>Narendra Modi</strong>, hailed the operation as a decisive blow against Pakistan’s supposed terrorism sponsorship. However, this narrative, steeped in arrogance, crumbled under scrutiny from opposition leaders and Pakistan’s dignified rebuttals. Consequently, the debate exposed India’s attempt to mask security lapses and diplomatic failures with jingoistic rhetoric. Moreover, Pakistan’s Foreign Office condemned India’s distortions, affirming its resilience against unprovoked aggression. This essay dissects the parliamentary debate, reveals the weaknesses in India’s official stance, amplifies opposition critiques, and underscores Pakistan’s principled position, while drawing lessons for third world nations like Pakistan navigating India’s belligerence.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context</h2> <p>India-Pakistan relations have been fraught since 1947, marked by wars (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999) and ongoing Kashmir disputes. For example, the 2008 Mumbai attacks halted bilateral cricket, reflecting India’s pattern of politicizing even cultural ties. The April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 civilians, escalated tensions, prompting India’s Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory strike targeting nine alleged terror sites in Azad Kashmir and Pakistani Punjab. Specifically, India’s suspension of the <strong>Indus Waters Treaty </strong>in May 2025 further strained relations, threatening Pakistan’s economic stability. Consequently, the operation, launched amid public outrage, was framed by India as a precise counterterrorism effort. However, Pakistan’s swift retaliation, damaging Indian airbases, challenged India’s narrative of military supremacy. Thus, the debate in India’s Parliament, held July 28-29, 2025, became a battleground for competing narratives, with Pakistan’s resilience overshadowing India’s aggression.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Details of the Parliamentary Debate</h2> <p>The Indian Parliament allocated 16 hours in each house—Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha—for the Operation Sindoor debate, starting July 28, 2025. For instance, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh opened the Lok Sabha discussion, claiming the operation “inflicted heavy damage” on Pakistan’s terror infrastructure, destroying nine sites, including seven in PoK, in 22 minutes. He boasted of India’s restraint, avoiding civilian targets, and claimed Pakistan “conceded defeat” by requesting a ceasefire on May 10. Similarly, Prime Minister Modi lauded the operation as a “new normal” in counterterrorism, asserting no world leader opposed it. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar denied U.S. mediation, refuting Trump’s claims of brokering a ceasefire through trade threats.</p> <p>However, opposition leaders challenged this narrative. For example, Congress MP R<strong>ahul Gandhi</strong> accused the government of lacking “political will” and constraining the military by sparing Pakistan’s air defenses. <strong>Priyanka Gandhi Vadra </strong>highlighted the absence of resignations post-Pahalgam, unlike the 2008 Mumbai attacks, questioning accountability. Moreover, Samajwadi Party MP <strong>Ramashankar Rajbhar</strong> criticized the 17-day delay in launching Sindoor, demanding a “tandoor” (decisive) response instead. Congress MP P. <strong>Chidambaram</strong> questioned the assumption that Pahalgam attackers came from Pakistan, demanding proof. Consequently, the debate, marked by theatrics—BJP MPs chanting “Hindu!” and opposition chanting “Indian!”—revealed deep divisions, with Pakistan’s perspective largely ignored.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Weaknesses in India’s Official Narrative</h2> <p>India’s government narrative on Operation Sindoor is riddled with flaws, exposing its arrogance and diplomatic shortcomings. First, the claim of a “<strong>precise, non-escalatory</strong>” operation is dubious. For instance, Pakistan’s retaliation, targeting Indian airbases from Srinagar to Bhuj, suggests India underestimated Pakistan’s military resolve. India’s assertion that Pakistan “c<strong>onceded defeat</strong>” is baseless, as Pakistan’s Foreign Office reported significant damage to Indian assets, contradicting Singh’s claims of minimal losses. Moreover, the operation’s 17-day delay undermines India’s narrative of urgency, as Rajbhar noted, suggesting either intelligence failures or political posturing.</p> <p>Second, India’s rejection of <strong>U.S. mediation </strong>is inconsistent with <strong>Trump’s repeated claims </strong>of halting Sindoor 26 times via trade threats. For example, Jaishankar’s denial of Modi-Trump talks between April 22 and June 17 lacks credibility, given Trump’s lunch invitation to Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir. This suggests India bowed to external pressure, undermining its “strategic autonomy” narrative. Furthermore, India’s failure to secure global condemnation of Pakistan, as Rahul Gandhi criticized, highlights diplomatic weakness, despite delegations to 30 capitals.</p> <p>Third, the government’s focus on “civilisation versus barbarism” reeks of chauvinism. For instance, Singh’s rhetoric alienates Pakistan and fuels domestic polarization, as Priyanka Gandhi’s naming of victims sparked divisive chants. Additionally, the operation’s reliance on indigenous weapons, while touted as a success, ignored losses—potentially four to five jets, per Trump’s vague remarks—exposing vulnerabilities. Thus, India’s narrative crumbles under scrutiny, revealing a desperate attempt to mask failures with nationalist bravado.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Opposition Leaders’ Critiques</h2> <p>Opposition leaders exposed critical flaws in the government’s handling of Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack. For instance, Rahul Gandhi accused the Modi administration of lacking “political will” and imposing constraints that led to aircraft losses by not targeting Pakistan’s military infrastructure. He argued this limited the operation’s effectiveness, allowing Pakistan to retaliate robustly. Similarly, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra demanded accountability, noting no resignations followed Pahalgam, unlike the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where senior officials stepped down. She questioned why no heads rolled despite admitted security lapses by Jammu and Kashmir’s Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha.</p> <p>Moreover, P. Chidambaram challenged the government’s assumption that Pahalgam attackers originated from Pakistan, demanding evidence and exposing India’s rush to blame its neighbor. Samajwadi Party MP Ramashankar Rajbhar criticized the 17-day delay, arguing it diluted public demand for swift retaliation. For example, his “tandoor, not Sindoor” remark resonated with public frustration, highlighting India’s sluggish response. Additionally, Congress MP Pramod Tiwari raised four unanswered questions: the terrorists’ identities, their origins, Trump’s role, and whether Pakistan was forewarned. Consequently, these critiques, grounded in demands for transparency, dismantled India’s narrative of a flawless operation, aligning with Pakistan’s call for accountability.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Pakistani Foreign Office’s Stance</h2> <p><a href="https://ptv.com.pk/ptvworld/newsdetail/10148"><strong>Pakistan’s Foreign Office</strong> (FO) issued a robust condemnation</a> of India’s parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor, rejecting it as a distortion of facts and an attempt to justify unprovoked aggression. On July 30, 2025, the FO stated, “India’s claims of targeting terror sites are baseless and designed to deflect from its own security failures in Pahalgam.” For instance, it highlighted Pakistan’s effective retaliation, which damaged Indian airbases, contradicting India’s narrative of supremacy. The FO accused India of violating international norms by launching strikes without evidence linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack.</p> <p>Moreover, the FO dismissed India’s ceasefire narrative, asserting Pakistan never “conceded defeat” but engaged in mutual de-escalation to prevent further escalation. It criticized Trump’s claims as “exaggerated,” noting no formal U.S. mediation occurred, aligning with Jaishankar’s denial but exposing India’s diplomatic vulnerability. The FO emphasized Pakistan’s resilience, stating, “Pakistan remains committed to peace but will not tolerate India’s belligerence.” Consequently, it called for international scrutiny of India’s actions, urging the UN to address violations of sovereignty. Thus, Pakistan’s stance, rooted in dignity and restraint, contrasts sharply with India’s aggressive posturing.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Countries</h2> <p>For third world countries like Pakistan, India’s Operation Sindoor and its parliamentary debate offer critical lessons in countering great power arrogance. For instance, Pakistan’s swift retaliation and diplomatic response demonstrate the importance of military readiness and strategic communication. Specifically, by challenging India’s narrative through the FO, Pakistan showcased how smaller nations can assert sovereignty against aggressive neighbors. Moreover, investing in soft power, as Pakistan did during the 2025 WCL cricket boycott, can amplify global influence. For example, Pakistan’s participation despite India’s withdrawal won international goodwill.</p> <p>However, resource constraints, such as Pakistan’s limited defense budget, pose challenges. Consequently, third world nations should prioritize cost-effective defense systems, like electronic warfare, which Pakistan used effectively in May 2025. Additionally, diplomatic alliances with powers like China, as seen in Pakistan’s CPEC ties, can counterbalance India’s regional dominance. Thus, Pakistan’s principled stance offers a model for nations navigating superpower rivalries, emphasizing resilience and strategic diplomacy.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>The Indian Parliament’s debate on Operation Sindoor exposed India’s flawed narrative, rooted in arrogance and obfuscation. For instance, the government’s claims of a decisive victory crumbled under opposition scrutiny, revealing delays, losses, and diplomatic failures. Opposition leaders like Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi rightfully demanded accountability, questioning India’s security lapses and political constraints. In contrast, Pakistan’s Foreign Office delivered a dignified rebuttal, exposing India’s aggression and asserting its commitment to peace. Consequently, the debate underscores India’s failure to justify its actions, while Pakistan’s resilience shines as a beacon for third world nations. India must abandon its belligerent posturing and embrace dialogue, lest it further isolates itself globally.</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/indias-operation-sindoor-debate/">India’s Operation Sindoor Debate: Exposing India’s Flawed Narrative and Pakistan’s Principled Stance</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/indias-operation-sindoor-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Trump’s Nuclear Submarine Deployment: Saber-Rattling and Its Implications for the EU and Beyond</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/trumps-nuclear-submarine-deployment/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/trumps-nuclear-submarine-deployment/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2025 13:00:10 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Geo Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[United States]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#EUSecurity]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#GlobalStability]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Medvedev]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#NuclearDeterrence]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanDiplomacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#SportsDiplomacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#TrumpSubmarines]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#UkraineWar]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#USRussiaTensions]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4197</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Khalid Masood) Introduction On August 1, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the repositioning of two nuclear submarines to “appropriate regions” near Russia, a provocative response to inflammatory remarks by Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former president and deputy chairman of its Security Council. For instance, Trump’s decision, publicized on Truth Social, cited Medvedev’s reference to...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/trumps-nuclear-submarine-deployment/">Trump’s Nuclear Submarine Deployment: Saber-Rattling and Its Implications for the EU and Beyond</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<em><strong>By Khalid Masood</strong></em>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>On August 1, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the repositioning of two nuclear submarines to “appropriate regions” near Russia, a provocative response to inflammatory remarks by Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former president and deputy chairman of its Security Council. For instance, Trump’s decision, publicized on Truth Social, cited Medvedev’s reference to Russia’s “Dead Hand” nuclear system as a “highly provocative” threat, necessitating a show of force to ensure U.S. safety. Consequently, this rare public acknowledgment of submarine movements, typically shrouded in secrecy, escalates tensions amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Moreover, it raises concerns for the European Union (EU), already grappling with energy crises, NATO’s role, and Russian aggression. This essay analyzes the diplomatic and strategic implications of Trump’s saber-rattling for the EU and the global community, exploring its roots in U.S.-Russia dynamics, its impact on European security, and lessons for third world countries, which navigate similar great power rivalries.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context</h2> <p>U.S.-Russia relations have been marked by cycles of cooperation and confrontation since the Cold War. For example, the 1962 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis">Cuban Missile Crisis </a>highlighted the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship, with U.S. submarines playing a deterrent role. Post-Cold War, tensions eased, but Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and 2022 invasion of Ukraine reignited hostilities. Specifically, President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats in 2022, coupled with Medvedev’s hawkish rhetoric, have kept nuclear risks alive. For instance, Medvedev’s 2025 reference to the “Dead Hand” system—a Soviet-era mechanism for automatic nuclear retaliation—echoes earlier provocations, as noted by The Guardian.</p> <p>Trump’s foreign policy, in his second term, blends unpredictability with assertive posturing. For instance, his July 28, 2025, ultimatum to Russia—demanding a Ukraine ceasefire within 10 days or facing sanctions—reflects a hardline stance. Medvedev’s retort, accusing Trump of risking war, prompted the submarine deployment. Consequently, this move aligns with Trump’s history of using military signaling, as seen in his 2017 Syria strikes. However, publicizing submarine movements is unprecedented, given their stealth role in the U.S. nuclear triad, which includes Ohio-class submarines capable of carrying Trident missiles with a 7,400-kilometer range. Thus, the incident is rooted in a volatile U.S.-Russia dynamic, amplified by social media spats.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Details of the Submarine Deployment</h2> <p>On August 1, 2025, Trump announced via Truth Social, “I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.” He did not clarify whether these were nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines, nor their exact locations, adhering to Pentagon secrecy protocols. For example, the U.S. Navy operates 14 Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs), each carrying up to 20 Trident missiles, and four guided-missile submarines (SSGNs) with Tomahawk cruise missiles. The White House, citing “strategic ambiguity,” offered no further details, while Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted Trump’s statement on X.</p> <p>Medvedev’s remarks, referencing Russia’s “Dead Hand” system, were a response to Trump’s shortened 10-day ceasefire deadline for Ukraine. For instance, Medvedev warned, “Each new ultimatum is a step towards war,” escalating a social media feud. Trump, speaking to reporters, justified the deployment as a safety measure: “A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we’re going to protect our people.” However, analysts like Hans Kristensen noted that U.S. submarines are always positioned for deterrence, suggesting the move is rhetorical rather than tactical. Thus, the deployment is a symbolic escalation, leveraging the Ohio-class submarines’ fearsome reputation.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Implications for the European Union</h2> <p>The EU faces significant challenges from Trump’s submarine deployment, given its proximity to Russia and reliance on NATO. For instance, the Russia-Ukraine war has already strained EU energy markets, with Russian drone attacks in July 2025 exacerbating energy insecurity. Trump’s saber-rattling risks further destabilizing the region. Specifically, a heightened U.S.-Russia confrontation could embolden Putin, who has shown no willingness to meet Trump’s August 8 ceasefire deadline. Consequently, EU nations like Germany, which pledged Patriot missile systems to Ukraine in August 2025, face increased pressure to bolster defences.</p> <p>Moreover, Trump’s unilateral action strains NATO cohesion. For example, his public nuclear posturing contrasts with the alliance’s preference for discreet deterrence, as noted by Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, who called it “irresponsible.” Eastern EU states, like Poland and the Baltics, may welcome U.S. resolve but fear escalation, given their proximity to Russia. Conversely, Western EU members, like France, advocate diplomacy, as seen in their support for Istanbul peace talks. Thus, the deployment risks fracturing EU unity, forcing leaders to balance security with de-escalation.</p> <p>Economically, the EU faces fallout from Trump’s broader trade policies. For instance, his August 2025 tariffs on global imports, including a 25% levy on India, could depress European markets, already reeling from Moscow’s stock market dip post-announcement. Additionally, the EU’s reliance on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG), following Russia’s reduced gas exports, makes it vulnerable to U.S. policy shifts. Therefore, Trump’s move amplifies Europe’s strategic and economic uncertainties, challenging its diplomatic agility.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Global Implications</h2> <p>Globally, Trump’s deployment reverberates across alliances and conflict zones. For instance, it signals to China, a Russian ally, that the U.S. is prepared to escalate militarily, potentially affecting Beijing’s calculations in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, it complicates nuclear diplomacy with Iran, as Trump referenced U.S. submarine superiority in a June 2025 post about Iran’s nuclear program. Consequently, nations like India, navigating U.S. sanctions for Russian oil purchases, may reassess their strategic alignments.</p> <p>The deployment also risks normalizing nuclear rhetoric. For example, Medvedev’s “Dead Hand” reference and Trump’s response shift the Overton window, making nuclear threats more acceptable. This alarms non-aligned nations, as noted by Al Jazeera, which highlighted the “high-stakes back-and-forth.” Furthermore, the Global South, including Pakistan, watches closely, as U.S.-Russia tensions could divert resources from development aid. Thus, the move destabilizes global security, raising fears of miscalculation.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Criticisms: Reckless Saber-Rattling or Strategic Deterrence?</h2> <p>Critics argue Trump’s public announcement is reckless, undermining nuclear deterrence’s subtlety. For instance, Kimball called it “inadvisable,” noting the U.S. historically avoids matching Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling. Moreover, Hans Kristensen emphasized that submarines are already positioned for deterrence, rendering Trump’s move performative. The lack of Pentagon confirmation fuels skepticism, as noted by The New York Times, which questioned whether any submarines were actually repositioned.</p> <p>From a pro-Pakistan perspective, Trump’s escalation is troubling. For example, Pakistan, a U.S. ally navigating India’s regional dominance, faces indirect risks from global instability. India’s alignment with Russia, despite U.S. sanctions, contrasts with Pakistan’s U.S.-Pakistan trade deal, which includes oil development. Consequently, Trump’s focus on Russia diverts attention from South Asian stability, where Pakistan seeks diplomatic leverage. Thus, critics view the deployment as a distraction from pressing regional issues.</p> <p>However, supporters argue it’s a necessary deterrent. For instance, White House officials, like Harrison Fields, framed it as a patriotic response to Medvedev’s threats. Evelyn Farkas of the McCain Institute downplayed nuclear risks, calling it “signaling” rather than confrontation. From this view, Trump’s move counters Medvedev’s hawkishness, reinforcing U.S. resolve. Nevertheless, the public nature of the announcement risks miscalculation, as Medvedev’s limited authority suggests his remarks were rhetorical.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Countries</h2> <p>For third world countries like Pakistan, Trump’s submarine deployment offers critical lessons in navigating great power rivalries. For instance, Pakistan’s experience with India’s 2025 WCL cricket boycott highlights the dangers of politicized actions undermining cooperation. Similarly, Trump’s public nuclear posturing shows how superpowers can escalate tensions through symbolic gestures. Consequently, Pakistan should prioritize diplomatic agility, balancing U.S. and Chinese partnerships to avoid being sidelined in global conflicts. For example, its 2025 U.S. trade deal strengthens economic ties, but reliance on Western aid must be tempered with self-sufficiency.</p> <p>Moreover, Pakistan can learn from Trump’s strategic ambiguity. By maintaining opacity in its own security policies, Pakistan can deter India without overt escalation. However, resource constraints, like limited defence budgets, hinder such strategies. Thus, investing in soft power—through sports diplomacy or cultural exchanges—can enhance Pakistan’s global standing, as seen in its resilient WCL participation. Therefore, third world nations must blend pragmatism with strategic signaling to navigate superpower tensions.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>President Trump’s August 2025 decision to reposition two nuclear submarines near Russia, in response to Dmitry Medvedev’s provocative remarks, marks a dangerous escalation in U.S.-Russia relations. For the EU, it heightens security and economic risks, straining NATO unity and energy stability. Globally, it normalizes nuclear rhetoric, alarming allies and non-aligned nations alike. The move diverts U.S. focus from South Asian priorities, underscoring the need for diplomatic agility. While supporters see it as deterrence, critics highlight its recklessness, risking miscalculation. Consequently, the deployment underscores the fragility of global stability, urging leaders to prioritize dialogue over brinkmanship.</p> <p></p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"></h2><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/trumps-nuclear-submarine-deployment/">Trump’s Nuclear Submarine Deployment: Saber-Rattling and Its Implications for the EU and Beyond</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/trumps-nuclear-submarine-deployment/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>India’s Arrogant Boycott: Undermining Sportsmanship in the 2025 WCL</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/india-2025-wcl-boycott-of-pakistan/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/india-2025-wcl-boycott-of-pakistan/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 18:05:32 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sports]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sub Continent]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#CricketPolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaBoycott]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#IndiaPakistanCricket]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PahalgamAttack]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanCricket]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#SportsDiplomacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Sportsmanship]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#WCL2025]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4193</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(Mohsin Tanveer) Introduction In July 2025, Indian cricket legends, including Yuvraj Singh, Shikhar Dhawan, and Suresh Raina, disgracefully refused to face Pakistan in the World Championship of Legends (WCL) in Birmingham, England, citing the flimsy pretext of geopolitical tensions following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack. Consequently, this arrogant decision led to the cancellation...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/india-2025-wcl-boycott-of-pakistan/">India’s Arrogant Boycott: Undermining Sportsmanship in the 2025 WCL</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<em><strong>Mohsin Tanveer</strong></em>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>In July 2025, Indian cricket legends, including <strong>Yuvraj Singh</strong>, <strong>Shikhar Dhawan</strong>, and <strong>Suresh Raina</strong>, disgracefully refused to face Pakistan in the <strong>World Championship of Legends </strong>(WCL) in Birmingham, England, citing the flimsy pretext of geopolitical tensions following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack. Consequently, this arrogant decision led to the cancellation of both a league-stage match and a semi-final, unjustly allowing Pakistan to advance to the final without a contest. For instance, Pakistan’s team, led by Shahid Afridi, stood ready to compete, embodying true sportsmanship. However, India’s boycott, backed by sponsor EaseMyTrip’s withdrawal, reflects a narrow-minded mentality that poisons cricket’s unifying spirit. Moreover, this act exacerbates tensions rooted in the May 2025 Indo-Pakistan conflict, where India’s Operation Sindoor escalated regional hostility. This article condemns India’s actions, celebrates Pakistan’s resilience, and explores the incident’s implications for sports diplomacy and regional stability.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context</h2> <p>India-Pakistan relations have been marred by conflict since 1947, with wars in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999 fueling mutual distrust, particularly over Kashmir. For example, cricket initially bridged this divide, with tours in the 1950s and 1978 fostering goodwill. However, India’s refusal to engage in bilateral cricket since the 2008 Mumbai attacks has politicized the sport. Specifically, the May 2025 Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 civilians, and India’s retaliatory <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/the-balance-sheet-of-operation-sindoor/">Operation Sindoor </a>deepened the rift. Consequently, India’s policy of avoiding Pakistan in sports, as seen in the 2025 Asia Cup and WCL, prioritizes political posturing over fair play. In contrast, Pakistan’s consistent willingness to compete, even amid tensions, highlights its commitment to cricket’s spirit. Thus, India’s repeated boycotts reveal a pattern of arrogance rooted in historical grievances.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The WCL Incident: Details and Reactions</h2> <p>The WCL, a T20 league for retired players, promised a thrilling India-Pakistan clash in July 2025. For instance, organizers scheduled a league-stage match and a semi-final at Edgbaston. However, Indian players, led by Yuvraj Singh, refused to participate, citing the Pahalgam attack as an excuse. Shikhar Dhawan declared on May 11, 2025, “My country is everything to me, and nothing is above the nation,” a statement dripping with sanctimonious nationalism. Similarly, EaseMyTrip withdrew sponsorship, claiming, “Terror and cricket cannot go hand in hand,” aligning with India’s narrative of Pakistan as a terrorism sponsor.</p> <p>Pakistan, led by Shahid Afridi, was poised to compete, with Afridi stating, “We are here to play cricket, not politics.” Consequently, the WCL canceled both matches, apologizing for “unintentionally causing discomfort” to Indian players. Pakistan rightfully refused to share points, asserting India “backed out,” and advanced to the final. For example, Senator Sherry Rehman condemned India’s “hate-filled mindset,” arguing it threatens regional peace. Thus, Pakistan’s readiness contrasted sharply with India’s petulant withdrawal, exposing the latter’s lack of sportsmanship.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Implications for Sports Diplomacy</h2> <p>Cricket has long served as a diplomatic bridge, uniting India-Pakistan fans despite political divides. For instance, Virat Kohli’s sportsmanlike gesture after Pakistan’s 2021 T20 World Cup victory exemplified this potential. However, India’s 2025 WCL boycott slams the door on such opportunities. By refusing to play, India prioritizes political vengeance over cricket’s unifying power, undermining the spirit of sportsmanship. Moreover, this move aligns with India’s broader diplomatic aggression, seen in its 2025 tariffs and sanctions against Pakistan for alleged terrorism.</p> <p>In contrast, Pakistan’s willingness to engage reflects a mature approach to sports diplomacy. For example, its participation in the 2025 Asia Cup, despite India’s objections, signals openness to dialogue. Consequently, India’s boycott risks further isolating it in global sports forums, as Pakistan’s advancement to the WCL final showcases its resilience. Thus, India’s actions not only harm bilateral relations but also diminish cricket’s role as a peace-building tool.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Criticisms: India’s Arrogance Exposed</h2> <p>India’s boycott is a blatant display of arrogance, contradicting the ethos of sportsmanship. For instance, Pakistan’s Senator Sherry Rehman rightly labeled it a “Modi-worshipping mindset,” reflecting a nationalistic fervor that poisons cricket. Moreover, India’s history of politicizing sports, such as biased officiating in the 2014 Kabaddi World Cup, reveals a pattern of bad faith. In 1978, a Pakistani player allegedly faced religious slurs from Indian cricketers, yet Pakistan continued to compete. By contrast, India’s 2025 refusal, backed by flimsy justifications, reeks of entitlement and intolerance.</p> <p>Supporters like EaseMyTrip and politician Abhishek Banerjee claim the boycott honors Pahalgam’s victims. However, this excuse rings hollow when India engages Pakistan in other sports, like the 2025 Hockey Asia Cup, under Olympic Charter obligations. For example, a <a href="https://pakpassion.com/">PakPassion.net </a>commenter called India’s stance “hypocrisy off the chart,” noting the unfairness to teams like West Indies, who were eliminated partly due to India’s awarded point. Thus, India’s actions betray a narrow-minded mentality, prioritizing politics over fair play and alienating global fans.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Countries</h2> <p>Pakistan’s dignified response to India’s boycott offers valuable lessons for third world countries. For instance, maintaining participation in global sports, as Pakistan did, enhances soft power and counters narratives of isolation. Specifically, Pakistan’s advancement to the WCL final, despite India’s withdrawal, showcases resilience and commitment to cricket’s spirit. Moreover, countries like Pakistan can invest in grassroots sports programs to build national pride and unity, reducing reliance on politically charged bilateral contests. However, limited funding and infrastructure pose challenges. For example, Pakistan’s sports budget struggles to support facilities. Thus, prioritizing low-cost sports initiatives and diplomatic engagement can amplify global influence while fostering peace.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusion</h2> <p>India’s arrogant refusal to play Pakistan in the 2025 WCL, citing the Pahalgam attack, is a shameful betrayal of cricket’s unifying spirit. While Pakistan stood ready to compete, embodying true sportsmanship, India’s boycott reflects a narrow-minded nationalism that poisons regional harmony. For instance, this act, backed by sponsors and politicians, escalates tensions already strained by the May 2025 conflict. Consequently, it undermines sports diplomacy’s potential to bridge divides. Pakistan’s resilience, in contrast, sets a global example. Thus, India must abandon its entitled stance and embrace cricket as a tool for peace, not politics.</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/india-2025-wcl-boycott-of-pakistan/">India’s Arrogant Boycott: Undermining Sportsmanship in the 2025 WCL</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/india-2025-wcl-boycott-of-pakistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Book Review: No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad by Daniel S. Markey</title> <link>https://khalidmasood.com/no-exit-from-pakistan/</link> <comments>https://khalidmasood.com/no-exit-from-pakistan/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[eaglepk.43@gmail.com]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:11:20 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Book Reviews]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#BookReview]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#DanielMarkey]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Diplomacy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#ForeignPolicy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Geopolitics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#NoExitFromPakistan]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#PakistanStudies]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#SouthAsia]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#Statecraft]]></category> <category><![CDATA[#USPakistanRelations]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://khalidmasood.com/?p=4187</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>(By Quratulain Khalid) Introduction Published in 2013, No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad by Daniel S. Markey offers a penetrating analysis of the fraught U.S.-Pakistan relationship, a dynamic central to global security. Drawing on his experience as a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) senior fellow and former U.S. State Department official, Markey...</p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/no-exit-from-pakistan/">Book Review: No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad by Daniel S. Markey</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h6 class="wp-block-heading has-text-align-center">(<em><strong>By Quratulain Khalid</strong></em>)</h6> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Introduction</h2> <p>Published in 2013, <strong><em>No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad</em> by <a href="https://www.stimson.org/ppl/dr-daniel-markey/">Daniel S. Markey </a></strong>offers a penetrating analysis of the fraught U.S.-Pakistan relationship, a dynamic central to global security. Drawing on his experience as a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) senior fellow and former U.S. State Department official, Markey likens this partnership to Jean-Paul Sartre’s play <em>No Exit</em>, where characters are trapped in eternal mutual torment. For instance, U.S.-Pakistan ties have oscillated between alliance and animosity since Pakistan’s founding in 1947, marked by cooperation during the Cold War and tensions post-9/11. Consequently, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, growing population, and ties with China and India keep it on America’s geostrategic radar. Moreover, internal challenges like corruption and extremism amplify its global significance. This book, therefore, serves as both a historical account and a policy guide, urging the U.S. to manage this relationship strategically. This review explores Markey’s arguments, strengths, weaknesses, and lessons for countries like Pakistan.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Historical Context</h2> <p>U.S.-Pakistan relations began with cautious alignment in 1947, driven by Cold War imperatives. For example, Pakistan joined U.S.-led alliances like SEATO to counter Soviet influence, receiving military aid. However, tensions emerged over Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions and U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. The 2001 9/11 attacks reset the relationship, with Pakistan becoming a frontline ally in the War on Terror. Yet, mutual distrust persisted. For instance, the 2011 U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad strained ties, as Pakistan felt violated, while the U.S. questioned its ally’s reliability. Markey’s book, published in 2013, captures this post-9/11 period up to 2012, before events like the 2014 Peshawar school attack or the 2021 U.S. Afghanistan withdrawal. Thus, it provides a snapshot of a critical yet dated moment in bilateral relations.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Themes and Content</h2> <p>The central theme is the inescapable interdependence of the U.S. and Pakistan. Markey argues that Pakistan’s internal issues—corrupt elites, economic instability, and extremism—threaten global security. For example, he highlights Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its ties with China as U.S. concerns. Moreover, he traces anti-American sentiment in Pakistan to historical grievances, like U.S. sanctions and perceived abandonment post-Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Consequently, both nations are locked in a cycle of mutual frustration, unable to fully disengage.</p> <p>Another key theme is strategic options for the U.S. Markey proposes three approaches: defensive insulation (mitigating Pakistan-based threats), military-first cooperation (supporting Pakistan’s military), and comprehensive cooperation (engaging civilian and military sectors). For instance, he advocates preparing for the worst while aiming for mutual benefit. Additionally, the book examines regional dynamics, particularly China’s growing influence and India-Pakistan tensions, which shape U.S. policy. Thus, it offers a nuanced framework for navigating this complex relationship.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Strengths</h2> <p>Markey’s book excels in its clarity and depth. His prose is accessible yet sophisticated, making complex diplomacy engaging. For example, a Goodreads reviewer praises its “succinct overview” of U.S.-Pakistan ties from the 1950s to 2012, ideal for geopolitics novices. Moreover, Markey’s insider perspective, drawn from his State Department role, adds credibility. He uses official documents, interviews, and news articles to craft a balanced narrative, as noted by Military Review’s Andrew Roe, who calls it “the best book” on the subject.</p> <p>Additionally, the book’s regional analysis is a strength. Markey’s discussion of China’s moderating role in U.S.-Pakistan spats, highlighted by Jane Perlez in the New York Times, offers fresh insights. For instance, he notes Beijing’s advice to Pakistan post-bin Laden to negotiate with the U.S. Furthermore, his three strategic options provide practical guidance for policymakers, earning praise from American Diplomacy for its “cogent” post-9/11 analysis. Thus, the book is both informative and actionable.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Weaknesses</h2> <p>However, the book has limitations. Its 2013 publication makes it dated, as a Goodreads reviewer notes, missing events like the 2014 Peshawar attack or the 2021 U.S. Afghanistan withdrawal. For example, Markey’s skepticism of Pakistan’s fear of U.S. abandonment in Afghanistan proved inaccurate. Moreover, his predictive analysis is weak, with a reviewer stating, “predictions and forecast are not the forte of the author.”</p> <p>Additionally, Markey’s U.S.-centric perspective can feel one-sided. For instance, he emphasizes Pakistan’s reliance on U.S. aid but underplays U.S. strategic interests, like countering China. A Pakistani reviewer on Medium felt this overlooked Pakistan’s agency, though they appreciated Markey’s honesty. Furthermore, the book’s focus on elite dynamics may neglect grassroots perspectives. Thus, its scope, while thorough, is not exhaustive.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Target Audience and Impact</h2> <p><em>No Exit from Pakistan</em> is ideal for students, policymakers, and enthusiasts of diplomacy and South Asian geopolitics. For example, its clear structure suits those new to the subject, while its policy proposals appeal to experts. A CFR review notes its appeal to “academics, diplomats, and strategists.” Moreover, its 3.5/5 Goodreads rating reflects a solid reception, though limited reviews suggest niche appeal.</p> <p>The book has shaped discussions on U.S.-Pakistan policy, influencing works like the CFR’s 2010 Task Force Report, which Markey directed. For instance, its emphasis on managing, not solving, the relationship resonates in academic and policy circles. However, its datedness limits its current relevance, especially post-2021. Nevertheless, it remains a key text for understanding bilateral dynamics.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Comparison to Similar Works</h2> <p>Compared to Vali Nasr’s <em>The Dispensable Nation</em>, Markey’s book is less focused on U.S. policy failures but broader in historical scope. For instance, Nasr critiques Obama’s retreat, while Markey examines decades of engagement. Similarly, Mark Mazzetti’s <em>The Way of the Knife</em> offers an insider CIA perspective, unlike Markey’s diplomatic focus. <em>No Exit</em> stands out for its Sartrean metaphor and strategic options, offering a unique lens on a complex alliance.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lessons for Third World Countries</h2> <p>For third world countries like Pakistan, <em>No Exit from Pakistan</em> offers critical lessons on navigating great power relations. Specifically, Markey highlights the risks of over-reliance on foreign aid, as Pakistan’s addiction to U.S. funds limited its autonomy. For example, countries can prioritize domestic reforms to reduce elite corruption and economic instability, fostering self-reliance. Moreover, the book underscores the importance of balancing relations with rival powers, like China and India, to avoid being pawns in geopolitical games. However, resource constraints and internal challenges, such as Pakistan’s low tax-to-GDP ratio, complicate implementation. Thus, adopting strategic diplomacy and investing in civil society could enhance stability and global standing.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Final Verdict</h2> <p><em>No Exit from Pakistan</em> is a compelling analysis of a tortured bilateral relationship. Markey’s clear prose, insider insights, and strategic proposals make it a must-read. For instance, its regional focus and historical depth enrich understanding. However, its datedness and U.S.-centric lens limit its scope. For readers seeking to grasp U.S.-Pakistan dynamics and diplomatic statecraft, it’s highly valuable. Thus, it earns a strong recommendation.</p> <p><strong>Rating</strong>: 3.8/5<br><strong>Recommendation</strong>: Ideal for students, policymakers, and readers interested in diplomacy, South Asian geopolitics, and U.S. foreign policy.</p> <h2 class="wp-block-heading"></h2> <p></p><p>The post <a href="https://khalidmasood.com/no-exit-from-pakistan/">Book Review: No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad by Daniel S. Markey</a> appeared first on <a href="https://khalidmasood.com">khalidmasood.com</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://khalidmasood.com/no-exit-from-pakistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel></rss> If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:
Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):
If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:
http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//khalidmasood.com/feed/
