A war is amalgam of military, diplomatic, economic etc etc capabilities of a nation. The loss or win is always judged as a whole and not in just one odd battle or domain. When a war is lost or won, there are tales of few battles, where the loser also may have had upper hand. But, who won the war?
A nation that starts a war or a conflict has the advantage of choosing the timing and place. It should have also worked out, if, it has the capability to bring the conflict to an end with it’s aim being achieved. It should work this out, by using each and every thing that it can use. If that aim is not achieved, then, it is not a victory. It may not have lost territory or gained any territory, but the mere fact, that, the war was started with an aim that wasn’t achieved is a failure and a loss.
Major conflicts between India and Paksiatn have been 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999.
We all know, who started which one and what was the final outcome. Was aggressor able to achieve it’s aim, or, ended up defending it’s own territory? And then celebrated it’s successful defence of territory as a victory. Defence day it is.
There have been enough discussions and fights, over all these wars. Last few comments are a reflection of similar sentiments. Paksiatn hasn’t been able to achieve it’s aim, in any of the conflicts, that it started. India started only one - 1971.
Members here celebrate battles and domains. They are either unaware or don’t want to ask tough questions, from the establishment and politicians, for failing them in so many conflicts and wars.
As far as this thread goes - PAF has always displayed professionalism and is a worthy opponent. They have also maintained themselves well, inspite of a small budget. Would they be able to continue to do that with dwindling resources, is the moot point.
Collaboration with Turkey or China can be helpful, only to a certain extent, due to lack of resources. These countries can’t keep giving the best tech, without adequate monetary contribution from Paksiatn.
