I'm from India. On May 8th, Indian mainstream media went on a TRP-chasing, exclusivity-seeking breaking-news barrage that was more intense than the drone attack by Pakistan. By next morning, it was clear that none of these channels had any moral fibre to uphold ethics of good journalism. That is when I started searching for "cleaner sources" of information and found you and few other OSINT sources. I am glad I found your 3 articles. It definitely helped me in understanding the conflict better. I'm impressed by your work.
I even saw you on our TV channels, but I think they were all more interested in the 2 lines you wrote than the whole articles - where you declared a clear-cut victory for India.
I saw the interview with Times TV. Not a single mention of the Rafale downing. Why not? Is this major incident not important in the context of the war. Or was it edited out by Indians terrible media channels?
Please, try to understand the overall scope: one nuclear power (named India) disabled the nuclear deterrent of the other (named Pakistan), using only a few conventional weapons.
I do not know (can't know) whether this is a description comprehensible to everybody?
It means that, Pakistan was 'de-facto disarmed'. Sure, it retained its nukes, but it can't use them, and even if, it can't expect to use them effectivelly. It can't expect its nukes to actully 'work' if fired at India.
There is no way to emphasise the importance of this fact.
Compared to this, the IAF could have lost 50 Rafales (i.e. all those it has already received and those it is yet to receive), and that wouldn't matter (except for families and friends of their pilots/crews, of course). It wouldn't matter because a nuclear power was brought to its knees: Pakistan was forced into realisation that India has not only called all of its bluffs, but also disabled - completely disabled - its nuclear deterent. India not only 'crossed' all the 'red lines' declared by Pakistan's generals, but is not even ready to talk with them. So much so, Pakistan could have more nuclear warheads than the USA and Russia combined (it doesn't, but I'm hyperbolling to emphasise), and they all would still be useless.
Please, try to underestand how 'huge' is that.
What's a loss of one Rafale EH in comparison? What would be the loss of 3 Rafales in comparison? 50? 100?
Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for this response. In my own exploration of the subject, I've found absolutely zero evidence of a downed Rafale (or any Indian) jet during the operation. It's possible that Pakistani air defense was fooled by Indian decoys (drones made to "appear" as jets) or that India used "fake jets" to draw air defense missiles in their direction. But there is no verified photographic or satellite evidence of any jet (save for a drop tank that likely came from a Mirage 2000). Back to what you were getting it, regarding the disabling of Pak's nuclear deterrence, why didn't India, in that case, simply press on and degrade Pakistan's armed forces completely? Why stop when it did?
This is one of reasons why I've decided to accept all the invitations for TV-interviews from the Indian media: in order to 'cool down', but at the same time also 'explain' the importance of latest developments.
It's not like Indians couldn't do so on their own: the country has a number of distinguished researchers and commentators. People who can, with ease, do that much better. It's 'just the media' that's often 'flipping out' in their sensationalism, while, at the same time, ignoring such calibres like (for example) Vishnu Som and colleagues from the NDTV, Barkha Dutt (Mojo Story), or the gent at CNN-India-18 (sadly, his name is escaping me now).
(I've also loved... indeed, particularly appreciated a channel airing in Hindu only: they took care to translate everything. The country is so diverse, and by best will: one should never expect 'all Indians to automatically speak English'.... very sorry I can't recall which was that: there were too many.)
After (meanwhile) some 9-10 interivews, I'll shamelessly admit: in several cases, I was then surprised by the quality of questions. This is far surpassing what I'm usually asked in 'the West', and definitely improving my impressions of the Indian landscape: there are a few 'cool' people there.
(On the other hand, it can easily be so that 'they' are acting differently when talking with Indians, than when talking with me.... no idea.)
Tom, its refreshing to see an honest response about what you do and don't know, and who you lean on for detail about the Pakistan - India military topic. Everyone who people call an expert on a topic should have this kind of honesty.
BTW, I really dislike being called an 'expert': is used much too often for people who are none.
Just analyst & historian. After all, didn't do anything more than applied what I've learned from the gentlemen mentioned above, and then worked myself through lots of 'OSINT' and info from contacts.
IExpert or not, PhD or not, this is academic honest good work. Definitely a scientist. I am not a historian, but isn’t that what historians (and other kinds of social scientists/humanists do)? Read several source, add their own, compare, contrast, debunk, synthesize etc into a new story? For a new audience?
Thank you for this. Actually I understand the Indian interest because you managed to remind at least me of the problem with Pakistani sponsorship of Islam groups. Wasn’t there something called Al Q something? Bombed some place in the West…. Not saying that Al Quida was better or worse than others, but Pakistan has been at it for a long time. And also I think you were right when you pointed out what India had won. Anyway thank you for this. It’s better to be informed, although not necessary more comfortable.
I too am not surprised at the plaudits given for this work. Apart from it being excellent work, as far as I can see there is no-one else presenting this insight. On the Ukraine war, there exists a whole spectrum of experts and idiots and you can find any opinion under the sun any day of the week. But Tom's analysis of the India situation is unique.
I'm from India. On May 8th, Indian mainstream media went on a TRP-chasing, exclusivity-seeking breaking-news barrage that was more intense than the drone attack by Pakistan. By next morning, it was clear that none of these channels had any moral fibre to uphold ethics of good journalism. That is when I started searching for "cleaner sources" of information and found you and few other OSINT sources. I am glad I found your 3 articles. It definitely helped me in understanding the conflict better. I'm impressed by your work.
I even saw you on our TV channels, but I think they were all more interested in the 2 lines you wrote than the whole articles - where you declared a clear-cut victory for India.
That last comment is depressing but I guess it's pretty much the same with TV all over the world. (That's why I don't have a TV).
I saw the interview with Times TV. Not a single mention of the Rafale downing. Why not? Is this major incident not important in the context of the war. Or was it edited out by Indians terrible media channels?
Please, try to understand the overall scope: one nuclear power (named India) disabled the nuclear deterrent of the other (named Pakistan), using only a few conventional weapons.
I do not know (can't know) whether this is a description comprehensible to everybody?
It means that, Pakistan was 'de-facto disarmed'. Sure, it retained its nukes, but it can't use them, and even if, it can't expect to use them effectivelly. It can't expect its nukes to actully 'work' if fired at India.
There is no way to emphasise the importance of this fact.
Compared to this, the IAF could have lost 50 Rafales (i.e. all those it has already received and those it is yet to receive), and that wouldn't matter (except for families and friends of their pilots/crews, of course). It wouldn't matter because a nuclear power was brought to its knees: Pakistan was forced into realisation that India has not only called all of its bluffs, but also disabled - completely disabled - its nuclear deterent. India not only 'crossed' all the 'red lines' declared by Pakistan's generals, but is not even ready to talk with them. So much so, Pakistan could have more nuclear warheads than the USA and Russia combined (it doesn't, but I'm hyperbolling to emphasise), and they all would still be useless.
Please, try to underestand how 'huge' is that.
What's a loss of one Rafale EH in comparison? What would be the loss of 3 Rafales in comparison? 50? 100?
Not even 'peanuts'.
Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for this response. In my own exploration of the subject, I've found absolutely zero evidence of a downed Rafale (or any Indian) jet during the operation. It's possible that Pakistani air defense was fooled by Indian decoys (drones made to "appear" as jets) or that India used "fake jets" to draw air defense missiles in their direction. But there is no verified photographic or satellite evidence of any jet (save for a drop tank that likely came from a Mirage 2000). Back to what you were getting it, regarding the disabling of Pak's nuclear deterrence, why didn't India, in that case, simply press on and degrade Pakistan's armed forces completely? Why stop when it did?
This is one of reasons why I've decided to accept all the invitations for TV-interviews from the Indian media: in order to 'cool down', but at the same time also 'explain' the importance of latest developments.
It's not like Indians couldn't do so on their own: the country has a number of distinguished researchers and commentators. People who can, with ease, do that much better. It's 'just the media' that's often 'flipping out' in their sensationalism, while, at the same time, ignoring such calibres like (for example) Vishnu Som and colleagues from the NDTV, Barkha Dutt (Mojo Story), or the gent at CNN-India-18 (sadly, his name is escaping me now).
(I've also loved... indeed, particularly appreciated a channel airing in Hindu only: they took care to translate everything. The country is so diverse, and by best will: one should never expect 'all Indians to automatically speak English'.... very sorry I can't recall which was that: there were too many.)
After (meanwhile) some 9-10 interivews, I'll shamelessly admit: in several cases, I was then surprised by the quality of questions. This is far surpassing what I'm usually asked in 'the West', and definitely improving my impressions of the Indian landscape: there are a few 'cool' people there.
(On the other hand, it can easily be so that 'they' are acting differently when talking with Indians, than when talking with me.... no idea.)
Perhaps no quote summarises India and Indians better than - "India consistently disappoints the optimists and the pessimists"; Ruchir Sharma
Hi Tom, Thanks for recommending more books. I hope to make time to read the ones I'm missing. They're sure to be very interesting. Best regards.
+ at least 1 new subscription in appreciation of the quality of your work (me) 😊
Tom, its refreshing to see an honest response about what you do and don't know, and who you lean on for detail about the Pakistan - India military topic. Everyone who people call an expert on a topic should have this kind of honesty.
Thx.
BTW, I really dislike being called an 'expert': is used much too often for people who are none.
Just analyst & historian. After all, didn't do anything more than applied what I've learned from the gentlemen mentioned above, and then worked myself through lots of 'OSINT' and info from contacts.
IExpert or not, PhD or not, this is academic honest good work. Definitely a scientist. I am not a historian, but isn’t that what historians (and other kinds of social scientists/humanists do)? Read several source, add their own, compare, contrast, debunk, synthesize etc into a new story? For a new audience?
Excelent as usual Tom!
Thank you for this. Actually I understand the Indian interest because you managed to remind at least me of the problem with Pakistani sponsorship of Islam groups. Wasn’t there something called Al Q something? Bombed some place in the West…. Not saying that Al Quida was better or worse than others, but Pakistan has been at it for a long time. And also I think you were right when you pointed out what India had won. Anyway thank you for this. It’s better to be informed, although not necessary more comfortable.
Always so humble and deserving of a respectable size on my modern warfare shelf of my physical (3000+ books) library!
3,000+ books! You are truly a connoisseur of knowledge.
I too am not surprised at the plaudits given for this work. Apart from it being excellent work, as far as I can see there is no-one else presenting this insight. On the Ukraine war, there exists a whole spectrum of experts and idiots and you can find any opinion under the sun any day of the week. But Tom's analysis of the India situation is unique.
Can we at least call you SENSEI??????
Well, if you insist, then 'Sheriff', please. ;-)
Time to play: "Name that Stupid Reference"
1) So, "There's a new sheriff in Town"
2) "I shit the sheriff..."
Can anyone Name either of those Stupid References????
Thanks as always Tom! By Pakistan nukes being "de facto disarmed", is that because their AA and radar shields were destroyed by the IAF?
My pleasure.
I'll address your question in the coming feature.