section_path: Analysis
section_name: Analysis
paragraph_text: Analysis
  
  According to The New York Times, India's role was "assertive" and "aggressive", and possibly established a new level of deterrence with Pakistan. The Times noted that in its initial strikes, India struck targets deeper inside enemy territory than it had struck in previous decades and had hit close enough to locations affiliated with "terrorist activities" that India could claim victory against these groups. At the end of the conflict, it published high-resolution before and after satellite images, which showed India's edge in targeting of Pakistan's military facilities and airfields. It reported that India felt frustrated after Donald Trump public claims of mediating a cease-fire, presenting both countries as equals and downplaying the terrorist attack that triggered the conflict, and that India had hoped any U.S. involvement would remain discreet, and Trump's portrayal of both countries on equal terms was seen by Indian officials as politically sensitive and diplomatically frustrating. According to the paper, the result of the conflict was "little more than a draw". Noting that despite India damaging sensitive Pakistani airbases, hangars and runways, it lost aircraft in aerial duels. It opined that the conflict had been a strategic setback for India, which found itself equated with Pakistan, a smaller, weaker country that Indian officials call a rogue sponsor of terrorism. It added that diplomatically, India appeared powerless to resolve the conflict and that the spectre of nuclear war limited what India could achieve militarily.
  
  According to The Washington Post, Pakistan's celebration that "ceasefire with India reestablished deterrence", "may be clouding a clearheaded assessment" and the "regional status quo had been upended" with more aggressive strikes by India, including a strike at Pakistan's military headquarters. The Post said that, according to analysts, the alleged losses of Indian aircraft would constitute a humiliation of the Indian military.
  
  According to the French newspaper Le Monde, this military operation against Pakistan revealed weaknesses in the Indian Air Force, and that the success of the Pakistan Air Force had to do with the superior training and combat experience of most of the pilots as they had been fighting continuous counterterrorism air campaigns in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, whereas India had largely remained at peace. It said that the major military confrontation "produced no winners."
  
  According to Al Jazeera, analysts contend that neither side emerged with a definite upper hand, and both nations made certain strategic gains even as they each also suffered losses. Al Jazeera further reported that analysts noted that Pakistan's gains included internationalising the Kashmir issue and the downing of aircraft, while India's gains involved highlighting alleged Pakistan-based terrorism and demonstrating further military reach across the border.
  
  The Financial Times, noting that both India and Pakistan claimed victory, said the ceasefire gave Islamabad the "diplomatic upper hand", as US intervention bracketed India, the "fifth-biggest economy", with what it sees as a "terrorism-backing rogue state".
  
  According to Manal Fatima of the Atlantic Council, the war appeared to unify fractured Pakistani political forces domestically and resulted in Pakistan having a diplomatic advantage over India regarding Trump's involvement in ceasefire talks. According to Srujan Palkar—global fellow at the Council—Operation Sindoor "exposed an imbalance in US policy toward South Asia". The expert noted that if the United States was to continue building trust with India, it must put "the onus on the Pakistani establishment to play its part in counterterrorism" as well as consider revoking Pakistan's Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status.
  
  According to the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the reported downing of an Indian Rafale jet (made in France) by a Pakistani air-defense system (made in China) raises concerns for Western military technologies. It stated that the Operation Sindoor by India "turned into a disaster", as it failed to take out their targets quickly, unnoticed and without losses, with Indian pilots encountering fierce resistance, and that despite India's claim that Pakistan was behind the Pahalgam attacks and its intention to deliver a punitive response, the operation resulted in heavy losses for India.
  
  According to The Diplomat magazine's Pakistan correspondent Umair Jamal, Pakistan came out "emboldened" after clashes with India. He said that the conflict unified the country, that the Pakistani military has emerged more popular than earlier, and that the political leadership now see the need to strengthen the armed forces. He believed that Pakistan scored a diplomatic win by acting with "restraint" and found the US intervention to have favoured Pakistan more than India.
  
  In an analysis published by RUSI, Walter Ladwig of King's College London wrote that India had seemingly "largely achieved its stated objectives". He noted that the Indian Airforce had, in the opening days, showed the capability to destroy claimed terror infrastructure, and for the first time since 1971 had penetrated the Pakistani air defence systems to hit forward airbases - showing a capacity for "coercive precision operations". However, he said that the Indian military's initial silence had ceded the narrative space, leading to an undue emphasis on specific platforms. He said that the Indian operation had set new normal regarding responses to terror attacks, changing the use of force against Pakistan proper from an "exception to expectation". He however noted that fringe actors may attempt to use this to provoke confrontations, and emphasised the need for expanding communication channels. He said that Operation Sindoor should not be remembered as a "dogfight between airframes" but as a "calibrated use of force" designed to show resolve, target terrorist infrastructure, and assert military capability.
  
  Christopher Clary, a University at Albany professor and expert on India–Pakistan relations, stated to The Washington Post that satellite evidence supports the claim that the Indian military inflicted significant, though not devastating, damage on Pakistan's air force at several eastern bases.
  
  According to John Spencer and Vincent Viola, writing in the Small Wars Journal, Operation Sindoor was more than just a rapid military reaction — it marked a significant strategic turning point. In just four days, India carried out accurate strikes on fortified positions across the border using only domestically developed or assembled systems such as BrahMos missiles, Akashteer air defense units, and loitering munitions, without relying on U.S. platforms or foreign logistics. India didn't just achieve victory — it demonstrated a clear military advantage over a Chinese-supported opponent. The operation highlighted a shift in national defense doctrine toward self-reliance and indigenous capability. As the journal notes, Pakistan, aligned with China in arms and strategy, was unable to counter India's precision offensive, with its Chinese-made air defenses proving ineffective.
  
  American geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert writing for the The National Interest described the aerial duel between both countries as an unambiguous victory for Pakistan, insofar as western observers had not expected Chinese-made equipment to be able to shoot down the Rafales.
  
  Retired Indian Navy officer and analyst C. Uday Bhaskar told Deutsche Welle Urdu that "India and Prime minister Modi had to respond to the 22 April attack because opposition parties and social media users were circulating clips of Modi criticizing former Prime minister Manmohan Singh for not retaliating after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Therefore, Modi had to prove that he could act on India's 'cross-border strike' policy by targeting locations such as Muridke and Bahawalpur in Pakistan's Punjab province." Bhaskar added that "this narrative reinforces the aggressive image of 'India under Modi's leadership,' which follows a hardline and zero-tolerance policy against terrorism. It supports the narrative of Modi as a 'protector of Hindus,' which carries electoral benefits. The upcoming Bihar assembly elections will be a test for this narrative."