Surgical Strike 2.0: “…A Tale Told by an Idiot, Full of Sound And Fury Signifying Nothing”

[undercover JIX]

ANALYSIS AND POLICY, ASIA
Surgical Strike 2.0: “…A Tale Told by an Idiot, Full of Sound And Fury Signifying Nothing”
Written by Adam Garrie on 2019-02-26

As soon as the term “fake news” entered the public lexicon, governments began to invoke the phrase in order to censor opposition opinion. At the forefront of this drive towards censorship has been India’s BJP government of Narendra Modi. In late 2018, geopolitical expert Andrew Korybko wrote about the immense pressure that New Delhi is putting on mostly American owned social media companies as part of an anti-free speech campaign that could even see those outside of India censored for expressing peaceful views which run contrary to the BJP narrative.

And yet, while governments perversely state that the free speech of ordinary civilians is a danger to governments and the public at large, the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. It is governments and their official and semi-official supporters that are the biggest liars in the world and it is their lies which are used to crush dissent, especially among opposition voices who have either found or stumbled onto the truth.

A prime example of a government and its corporate supporters pretending to fear individuals expressing themselves on social media, whilst telling self-evident lies to the public, has been brought to the fore in respect of what India has claimed about its overnight “surgical strike 2.0” against Pakistan.

Pro-government Indian mass media have reported that twelve Indian Air Force jets entered Pakistani airspace where they bombed an alleged base of an Indian proscribed terror group (Jaish-e-Mohammad) that just so happens to be banned in Pakistan (since 2002) and somehow killed 300 people (600 according to some estimates) in the process – all of whom are claimed by India to have been terrorists. Of course, there is one big problem. The Indian side has yet to produce a single piece of hard evidence regarding such substantial claims.

By contrast, Pakistan has produced evidence which tells a very different story. Pakistan’s Armed Froces Spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor has been transparent about the attack and has produced photographic evidence to support Pakistan’s assertions.

Pakistan has officially stated that the Indian aircraft which violated Pakistani airspace were rapidly intercepted and chased away. The retreat of the Indian aircraft was apparently so rapid that the jets dropped their payloads as they fled back to Indian airspace, thus causing damage only to some plant life, whilst no one was injured, let alone killed.


DG ISPR

✔@OfficialDGISPR
https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100251560985145346

Indian aircrafts’ intrusion across LOC in Muzafarabad Sector within AJ&K was 3-4 miles.Under forced hasty withdrawal aircrafts released payload which had free fall in open area. No infrastructure got hit, no casualties. Technical details and other important information to follow.


45K
00:29 - 26 Feb 2019
Twitter Ads information and privacy

22.7K people are talking about this






DG ISPR

✔@OfficialDGISPR
https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1100231826348617728

Payload of hastily escaping Indian aircrafts fell in open.



38.1K
23:11 - 25 Feb 2019
Twitter Ads information and privacy

20.4K people are talking about this





Today’s events are therefore an materially milder incident than the original so-called “surgical strikes” that India carried out against Pakistan in 2016. At that time, two Pakistan soldiers died and in 2019, not even any infrastructure was damaged by the dropping of the Indian jets’ payload in a rural area.

This however has not stopped the Indian Prime Minister, his BJP colleagues and those in multiple Indian parties, from declaring a supreme victory based on the unsubstantiated narratives told by the corporate media in India.

To demonstrate the kind of evidence that India would have been able to produce if its government and mass media supporters were telling the truth: this is what a US airstrike looks like:

And this is what a Russian airstrike looks like

Why then has India not released cockpit footage of the strike in a manner consistent with the standards of 21st century warfare? The only video India has thus far released is footage apparently taken from someone’s mobile phone on the ground, which does not indicate that the jet in question has actually targeted anything at all. Moreover, many social media users from around the world have been quick to point out that the footage of said plane predates the 26th of February. Additional apparent ground footage presented by India has also been exposed to be significantly older than this month and that furthermore the footage in question was from an online video of the Pakistani Air Force. Yet another video which purportedly showed India’s “attack” was also exposed as four year old footage from a video game. Lastly, why are there no photos of the hundreds of dead bodies that India claims number between 300 and 600? Something is self-evidently suspect.


EconomicTimes

✔@EconomicTimes
https://twitter.com/EconomicTimes/status/1100315234739343360

#IndiaStrikesBack: Details of #IndianAirForce attack in Pakistan | https://bit.ly/2U8cbvH
.#AirStrike




116
04:42 - 26 Feb 2019
Twitter Ads information and privacy

48 people are talking about this






Arshad Sharif

✔@arsched
https://twitter.com/arsched/status/1100314257412055040

The attached video is of #PakistanAirForce exercise from 2017 and #Indian media started using #PAF video!!!

Salute to #PAF for being awake at 3 am to thwart the #IAF #FakeSurgicalStrike2 .
You can watch the video here:

https://youtu.be/eNHs7FMtSwc https://twitter.com/arsched/status/1100260484513714178 …

YouTube ‎@YouTube


Arshad Sharif

✔@arsched

Salute to brave pilots and airmen of #PAF who chased out intruding #IAF . #Indian Air Force dropped fuel tanks while escaping and projected it as #FakeSurgicalStrike2 . #Pakistanis awaiting #Pakistan ‘s response to provocative act of war by #India as promised by #PMIK




3,445
04:38 - 26 Feb 2019
Twitter Ads information and privacy

1,377 people are talking about this





And yet, India’s Prime Minister has already given a speech revelling in an apparent victory when all the evidence that has thus far been produced indicates that Pakistan is telling the truth and India is not.

Of course, this is a rare moment in which a lie is safer than the truth. Had India actually killed lawful residents of Pakistan, on Pakistani soil, without consulting Pakistan’s government, without the approval of the United Nations and without being able to justify the attack based on the Caroline Test of imminent danger – India would have committed a war crime. As it stands, India’s “attack” was clearly a mild game of air born chicken whose real purpose was not military but political and party political at that.

So long as India did enough to create a foundation upon which to wildly embellish the truth of the matter, Modi would have gotten what he wanted. The fact that Modi is now flying the flag of jingoism in spite of the fact that the “surgical strike” only damaged some trees, is proof positive that rather than risk a genuine conflict with Pakistan’s Armed Forces, one which could have seriously backfired upon India, Modi has instead decided to play politics with fighter jets, just as he did in 2016.

Based on the BJP’s heavy electoral loses, even in its own northern heartlands during the 2018 regional elections, it is ultimately not surprising that Modi is now using every trick in the book in order to try and secure victory for the BJP in this Spring’s general election. Ultimately though “surgical strike 2.0″ was in the words of Shakespeare: …”a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing”.

All that is now left to do is for Pakistan’s government to expose to the wider world, just how flawed and fictitious the Indian narrative is.

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/02/2...ot-full-of-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing/

 

[Krptonite]

The quoted site's not media but a think tank analysis group. It's pretty sketchy.
http://www.southasiaathudson.org/blog/2018/3/29/has-fake-news-in-pakistan-found-russian-allies

This is what poped up when I googled 'adam garrie'

codastory.com How a Little-Known Pro-Kremlin Analyst Became a Philippine Expert Overnight -

https://amp.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/219316-steps-do-not-let-experts-online-fool-you

Most of the author's published work is opinion pieces and his credibility is questionable, can you please post a verified link to a valid publication house or is any random spew on the internet eligible for thread topics?

 

[undercover JIX]

The quoted site's not media but a think tank analysis group. It's pretty sketchy.
http://www.southasiaathudson.org/blog/2018/3/29/has-fake-news-in-pakistan-found-russian-allies

This is a Russian Think Tank, as far as posted article is concerned, I did not see any fake news in it. It is giving reference to official statements and then stating its point of view.

In your link. Fake news were spread regarding Pakistan, its Russian website and India can use Russian sources to spread false news about Pakistan.

Jang Group took action against fake news and they were removed.

India can take action and make it disappear if it its not true.

 

[Krptonite]

This is a Russian Think Tank, as far as posted article is concerned, I did not see any fake news in it. It is giving reference to official statements and then stating its point of view.

Fake news were spread regarding Pakistan, its Russian website and India can use Russian sources to spread false news about Pakistan.

Jang Group took action against fake news and they were removed.

India can take action and make it disappear it its not true.

That's what I'm trying to convey, it's not news it's an opinion peddled as news, and the author's credibility is questionable. Why distrust when against Pakistan and trust when against India, the publication house is the same.

If you could be kind enough to post an article saying the same thing from any international publication or media groups I'll happily stand corrected.

 

[pakpride00090]

That's what I'm trying to convey, it's not news it's an opinion peddled as news, and the author's credibility is questionable. Why distrust when against Pakistan and trust when against India, the publication house is the same.

If you could be kind enough to post an article saying the same thing from any international publication or media groups I'll happily stand corrected.

Liar Hindu Indian...We all know what happened after a reputable publication debunked your claim of f-16...

And then your ganja airforce officer came with a pathetic slide of so called radar who nobody except retards would believe aka indians

 

[Krptonite]

Liar Hindu Indian...We all know what happened after a reputable publication debunked your claim of f-16...

And then your ganja airforce officer came with a pathetic slide of so called radar who nobody except retards would believe aka indians

If the situation was reversed, an article critical of Pakistan with an unverified source was posted here and a member asked for a valid source, which swear words should I utilise so that I don't get banned, you seem to be experienced in these matters.

 

[pakpride00090]

If the situation was reversed, an article critical of Pakistan with an unverified source was posted here and a member asked for a valid source, which swear words should I utilise so that I don't get banned, you seem to be experienced in these matters.

Go to an Indian forum and swear there....You can swear , ask bob and vegana and possible shit on your Indian forums.

 

[undercover JIX]

That's what I'm trying to convey, it's not news it's an opinion peddled as news, and the author's credibility is questionable. Why distrust when against Pakistan and trust when against India, the publication house is the same.

If you could be kind enough to post an article saying the same thing from any international publication or media groups I'll happily stand corrected.

I hope this helps a bit.


Did Balakot Airstrikes Hit Their Target? Satellite Imagery Raises Doubts
An analysis by the International Cyber Policy Centre in Australia questions the Indian government's claims that terror facilities in Pakistan were hit and destroyed.

Nathan Ruser
SECURITY
01/MAR/2019
After 12 days of heightened tension between India and Pakistan following the February 14 Pulwama attack in Jammu and Kashmir, considerable hostilities broke out between the two countries. In the early morning of February 26, Indian fighter jets reportedly bombed a target in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan after crossing over the line of control (LoC) and Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

While the Indian and Pakistani military have regularly conducted firing across the LoC in recent years, including airstrikes in September 2016, this incident marks the first time that Indian forces have released munitions into Pakistan’s undisputed territory since the 1971 India-Pakistan War.

The Indian media has reported that the target of the strike was a concentration of militants – members of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a Pakistan-based organisation that has conducted significant terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir – who had evacuated disputed Kashmir out of fears of Indian retaliation for the Pulwama attack. India claimed that the facility, roughly 10 km into Pakistani-administered Kashmir and near the town of Jaba, was largely destroyed, resulting in the death of hundreds of militants.

Satellite imagery, acquired by Planet Labs Inc. on the morning of February 27 and accessed by ASPI, calls this claim into question. No evidence of damage to the facility or nearby areas is visible on the images. Local media have visited the site and published photographs of multiple small craters in the vicinity, but they haven’t been granted access to the facility that was reportedly targeted. Satellite imagery, presented and analysed below, provides no apparent evidence of more extensive damage and on the face of it does not validate Indian claims regarding the effect of the strikes.

By analysing areas of healthy vegetation from the imagery, I’ve been able to identify three clear impact areas between 150 and 200 metres from the edge of the facility. These correspond to photos shared by local journalists and confirm the location of strikes.

The recent tension between India and Pakistan has been marked by disinformation from both sides. Local media’s reporting of unsubstantiated facts and rumours, together with online trolls, have made it difficult to discern the reality of the situation. The satellite imagery suggests that the claims made by India’s Ministry of External Affairs of ‘a very large number’ of militants being killed in the strike are likely false.

An interesting aspect of the incident is the speculation about what might have caused the munitions to land so far from structures in the targeted facility. The official spokesman of the Pakistan Armed Forces, Major General Asif Ghafoor, claimed on Twitter that a prompt Pakistani response forced the Indian pilots to ditch their payload and retreat.

Later that day, unnamed Indian defence sources were reported to have leaked to the media the precise munitions that were used in the strike: Israeli-made SPICE-2000 precision-guided bombs. The reporting made it clear that these munitions operate largely through pre-programmed coordinates, and also feature optical recognition sensors to guide the missile to the target. Indeed, the payload dictated the model of fighter jet used, as India’s newer Su-30 fighters are not compatible with the SPICE-2000.

Also read | Editorial: India and Pakistan Should De-Escalate Now

These reported leaks signalled that the mission was designed so that the payloads would not miss their intended targets. The munitions that guided the mission’s planning and were used in it have a ‘circular error probable’ of three metres – which means that 50% of all strikes are designed to hit their coordinates to within three metres, and statistically fewer than 0.2% hit further than 10 metres from the designated strike area.

This reportedly leaked information could be read as refuting Pakistani claims of an inaccurate strike to an Indian audience while signalling to Pakistani decision-makers that the intended effect of these strikes was to not cause material damage. In a statement issued the following day, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs asserted that its strikes in Jammu and Kashmir were against non-military targets and likewise did not cause any significant damage.

It’s possible that the overall strategy behind the Indian mission was to demonstrate military capability while managing escalation. One of the undisputed facts is that Indian jets crossed not only Kashmir’s LoC, but also the international border into undisputed Pakistani territory and were able to release their payloads. India’s military claims that the strikes lasted for a total of 20 minutes.

It’s also possible that an error in the targeting process caused these strikes to fail. Confirmed reports of airstrikes were first released by Ghafoor, the representative of a military that explicitly denied previous airstrikes conducted by India. Meanwhile, sources within the Indian Armed Forces claimed that they struck three locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Although no evidence or substantiated reports have emerged of additional Indian strikes, it’s possible that Pakistan would only acknowledge a failed strike from among a larger wave of successful ones.

Also read | Only India and Pakistan Can Solve the Current Crisis

However, based on the available evidence – satellite imagery, official statements and reported leaks to the media – it appears plausible that India’s strikes in Pakistan were designed primarily to placate a domestic audience while simultaneously limiting escalation by not targeting built-up areas and causing substantial casualties. India’s upcoming election placed significant pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to act in retaliation for the Pulwama attack. There was a requirement to balance the domestic desire for a strong response with the risk of a broader military conflict that would be costly for both countries.

By issuing strong statements while offering Pakistan implicit assurances that these strikes were limited – but only by choice – India would be able to achieve that balance. The release of an Indian pilot who was captured by the Pakistani military highlights that while risks of unintended escalation are real, throughout this period of tension, both parties seem to have been seeking off-ramps from further conflict.

Nathan Ruser is a researcher at ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre. Images courtesy of Planet Labs, Google Earth, Digital Globe and Asif Ghafoor on Twitter.

https://thewire.in/security/balakot-airstrikes-india-pakistan-satellite-images

If the situation was reversed, an article critical of Pakistan with an unverified source was posted here and a member asked for a valid source, which swear words should I utilise so that I don't get banned, you seem to be experienced in these matters.

International analysis is available for all whoever wants to see it, instead of asking, you can search and try to read non Indian Bhagat analysis. its lot experts have done satellite imaginary forensic analysis and proved Modi ji's Election stunt for local consumption.

 

[Krptonite]

Go to an Indian forum and swear there....You can swear , ask bob and vegana and possible shit on your Indian forums.

Ah! thank you, I have much to learn.

 

[pakpride00090]

Ah! thank you, I have much to learn.

You will once you stop shitting.

 

[Krptonite]

I hope this helps a bit.


Did Balakot Airstrikes Hit Their Target? Satellite Imagery Raises Doubts
An analysis by the International Cyber Policy Centre in Australia questions the Indian government's claims that terror facilities in Pakistan were hit and destroyed.

Nathan Ruser
SECURITY
01/MAR/2019
After 12 days of heightened tension between India and Pakistan following the February 14 Pulwama attack in Jammu and Kashmir, considerable hostilities broke out between the two countries. In the early morning of February 26, Indian fighter jets reportedly bombed a target in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan after crossing over the line of control (LoC) and Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

While the Indian and Pakistani military have regularly conducted firing across the LoC in recent years, including airstrikes in September 2016, this incident marks the first time that Indian forces have released munitions into Pakistan’s undisputed territory since the 1971 India-Pakistan War.

The Indian media has reported that the target of the strike was a concentration of militants – members of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a Pakistan-based organisation that has conducted significant terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir – who had evacuated disputed Kashmir out of fears of Indian retaliation for the Pulwama attack. India claimed that the facility, roughly 10 km into Pakistani-administered Kashmir and near the town of Jaba, was largely destroyed, resulting in the death of hundreds of militants.

Satellite imagery, acquired by Planet Labs Inc. on the morning of February 27 and accessed by ASPI, calls this claim into question. No evidence of damage to the facility or nearby areas is visible on the images. Local media have visited the site and published photographs of multiple small craters in the vicinity, but they haven’t been granted access to the facility that was reportedly targeted. Satellite imagery, presented and analysed below, provides no apparent evidence of more extensive damage and on the face of it does not validate Indian claims regarding the effect of the strikes.

By analysing areas of healthy vegetation from the imagery, I’ve been able to identify three clear impact areas between 150 and 200 metres from the edge of the facility. These correspond to photos shared by local journalists and confirm the location of strikes.

The recent tension between India and Pakistan has been marked by disinformation from both sides. Local media’s reporting of unsubstantiated facts and rumours, together with online trolls, have made it difficult to discern the reality of the situation. The satellite imagery suggests that the claims made by India’s Ministry of External Affairs of ‘a very large number’ of militants being killed in the strike are likely false.

An interesting aspect of the incident is the speculation about what might have caused the munitions to land so far from structures in the targeted facility. The official spokesman of the Pakistan Armed Forces, Major General Asif Ghafoor, claimed on Twitter that a prompt Pakistani response forced the Indian pilots to ditch their payload and retreat.

Later that day, unnamed Indian defence sources were reported to have leaked to the media the precise munitions that were used in the strike: Israeli-made SPICE-2000 precision-guided bombs. The reporting made it clear that these munitions operate largely through pre-programmed coordinates, and also feature optical recognition sensors to guide the missile to the target. Indeed, the payload dictated the model of fighter jet used, as India’s newer Su-30 fighters are not compatible with the SPICE-2000.

Also read | Editorial: India and Pakistan Should De-Escalate Now

These reported leaks signalled that the mission was designed so that the payloads would not miss their intended targets. The munitions that guided the mission’s planning and were used in it have a ‘circular error probable’ of three metres – which means that 50% of all strikes are designed to hit their coordinates to within three metres, and statistically fewer than 0.2% hit further than 10 metres from the designated strike area.

This reportedly leaked information could be read as refuting Pakistani claims of an inaccurate strike to an Indian audience while signalling to Pakistani decision-makers that the intended effect of these strikes was to not cause material damage. In a statement issued the following day, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs asserted that its strikes in Jammu and Kashmir were against non-military targets and likewise did not cause any significant damage.

It’s possible that the overall strategy behind the Indian mission was to demonstrate military capability while managing escalation. One of the undisputed facts is that Indian jets crossed not only Kashmir’s LoC, but also the international border into undisputed Pakistani territory and were able to release their payloads. India’s military claims that the strikes lasted for a total of 20 minutes.

It’s also possible that an error in the targeting process caused these strikes to fail. Confirmed reports of airstrikes were first released by Ghafoor, the representative of a military that explicitly denied previous airstrikes conducted by India. Meanwhile, sources within the Indian Armed Forces claimed that they struck three locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Although no evidence or substantiated reports have emerged of additional Indian strikes, it’s possible that Pakistan would only acknowledge a failed strike from among a larger wave of successful ones.

Also read | Only India and Pakistan Can Solve the Current Crisis

However, based on the available evidence – satellite imagery, official statements and reported leaks to the media – it appears plausible that India’s strikes in Pakistan were designed primarily to placate a domestic audience while simultaneously limiting escalation by not targeting built-up areas and causing substantial casualties. India’s upcoming election placed significant pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to act in retaliation for the Pulwama attack. There was a requirement to balance the domestic desire for a strong response with the risk of a broader military conflict that would be costly for both countries.

By issuing strong statements while offering Pakistan implicit assurances that these strikes were limited – but only by choice – India would be able to achieve that balance. The release of an Indian pilot who was captured by the Pakistani military highlights that while risks of unintended escalation are real, throughout this period of tension, both parties seem to have been seeking off-ramps from further conflict.

Nathan Ruser is a researcher at ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre. Images courtesy of Planet Labs, Google Earth, Digital Globe and Asif Ghafoor on Twitter.

https://thewire.in/security/balakot-airstrikes-india-pakistan-satellite-images



International analysis is available for all whoever wants to see it, instead of asking, you can search and try to read non Indian Bhagat analysis. its lot experts have done satellite imaginary forensic analysis and proved Modi ji's Election stunt for local consumption.

Dear @undercover JIX I think you have misunderstood, I'm not debating the facts on 27 feb, both sides are pretty firm in what they believe in, I'm objecting to posting articles without authenticity to simply spread bias, there are many valid complaints about my country with valid sources you can post here.

 

[undercover JIX]

Dear @undercover JIX I think you have misunderstood, I'm not debating the facts on 27 feb, both sides are pretty firm in what they believe in, I'm objecting to posting articles without authenticity to simply spread bias, there are many valid complaints about my country with valid sources you can post here.

So what are you looking for?

Article 1: Source sketchy, but contents not?
Article 2: What? Both Sketchy?

If you could be kind enough to post an article saying the same thing from any international publication or media groups I'll happily stand corrected.

You asked for International publication, I provided. what are the concerns regarding this source?

 

[Maxpane]

let it go man

 

[Krptonite]

I hope this helps a bit.


Did Balakot Airstrikes Hit Their Target? Satellite Imagery Raises Doubts
An analysis by the International Cyber Policy Centre in Australia questions the Indian government's claims that terror facilities in Pakistan were hit and destroyed.

Nathan Ruser
SECURITY
01/MAR/2019
After 12 days of heightened tension between India and Pakistan following the February 14 Pulwama attack in Jammu and Kashmir, considerable hostilities broke out between the two countries. In the early morning of February 26, Indian fighter jets reportedly bombed a target in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan after crossing over the line of control (LoC) and Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

While the Indian and Pakistani military have regularly conducted firing across the LoC in recent years, including airstrikes in September 2016, this incident marks the first time that Indian forces have released munitions into Pakistan’s undisputed territory since the 1971 India-Pakistan War.

The Indian media has reported that the target of the strike was a concentration of militants – members of Jaish-e-Mohammad, a Pakistan-based organisation that has conducted significant terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir – who had evacuated disputed Kashmir out of fears of Indian retaliation for the Pulwama attack. India claimed that the facility, roughly 10 km into Pakistani-administered Kashmir and near the town of Jaba, was largely destroyed, resulting in the death of hundreds of militants.

Satellite imagery, acquired by Planet Labs Inc. on the morning of February 27 and accessed by ASPI, calls this claim into question. No evidence of damage to the facility or nearby areas is visible on the images. Local media have visited the site and published photographs of multiple small craters in the vicinity, but they haven’t been granted access to the facility that was reportedly targeted. Satellite imagery, presented and analysed below, provides no apparent evidence of more extensive damage and on the face of it does not validate Indian claims regarding the effect of the strikes.

By analysing areas of healthy vegetation from the imagery, I’ve been able to identify three clear impact areas between 150 and 200 metres from the edge of the facility. These correspond to photos shared by local journalists and confirm the location of strikes.

The recent tension between India and Pakistan has been marked by disinformation from both sides. Local media’s reporting of unsubstantiated facts and rumours, together with online trolls, have made it difficult to discern the reality of the situation. The satellite imagery suggests that the claims made by India’s Ministry of External Affairs of ‘a very large number’ of militants being killed in the strike are likely false.

An interesting aspect of the incident is the speculation about what might have caused the munitions to land so far from structures in the targeted facility. The official spokesman of the Pakistan Armed Forces, Major General Asif Ghafoor, claimed on Twitter that a prompt Pakistani response forced the Indian pilots to ditch their payload and retreat.

Later that day, unnamed Indian defence sources were reported to have leaked to the media the precise munitions that were used in the strike: Israeli-made SPICE-2000 precision-guided bombs. The reporting made it clear that these munitions operate largely through pre-programmed coordinates, and also feature optical recognition sensors to guide the missile to the target. Indeed, the payload dictated the model of fighter jet used, as India’s newer Su-30 fighters are not compatible with the SPICE-2000.

Also read | Editorial: India and Pakistan Should De-Escalate Now

These reported leaks signalled that the mission was designed so that the payloads would not miss their intended targets. The munitions that guided the mission’s planning and were used in it have a ‘circular error probable’ of three metres – which means that 50% of all strikes are designed to hit their coordinates to within three metres, and statistically fewer than 0.2% hit further than 10 metres from the designated strike area.

This reportedly leaked information could be read as refuting Pakistani claims of an inaccurate strike to an Indian audience while signalling to Pakistani decision-makers that the intended effect of these strikes was to not cause material damage. In a statement issued the following day, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs asserted that its strikes in Jammu and Kashmir were against non-military targets and likewise did not cause any significant damage.

It’s possible that the overall strategy behind the Indian mission was to demonstrate military capability while managing escalation. One of the undisputed facts is that Indian jets crossed not only Kashmir’s LoC, but also the international border into undisputed Pakistani territory and were able to release their payloads. India’s military claims that the strikes lasted for a total of 20 minutes.

It’s also possible that an error in the targeting process caused these strikes to fail. Confirmed reports of airstrikes were first released by Ghafoor, the representative of a military that explicitly denied previous airstrikes conducted by India. Meanwhile, sources within the Indian Armed Forces claimed that they struck three locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Although no evidence or substantiated reports have emerged of additional Indian strikes, it’s possible that Pakistan would only acknowledge a failed strike from among a larger wave of successful ones.

Also read | Only India and Pakistan Can Solve the Current Crisis

However, based on the available evidence – satellite imagery, official statements and reported leaks to the media – it appears plausible that India’s strikes in Pakistan were designed primarily to placate a domestic audience while simultaneously limiting escalation by not targeting built-up areas and causing substantial casualties. India’s upcoming election placed significant pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to act in retaliation for the Pulwama attack. There was a requirement to balance the domestic desire for a strong response with the risk of a broader military conflict that would be costly for both countries.



International analysis is available for all whoever wants to see it, instead of asking, you can search and try to read non Indian Bhagat analysis. its lot experts have done satellite imaginary forensic analysis and proved Modi ji's Election stunt for local consumption.

So what are you looking for?

Article 1: Source sketchy, but contents not?
Article 2: What? Both Sketchy?



You asked for International publication, I provided. what are the concerns regarding this source?

So what are you looking for?

Article 1: Source sketchy, but contents not?
Article 2: What? Both Sketchy?



You asked for International publication, I provided. what are the concerns regarding this source?

Article 1 : unverified aurthor, biased content
Article 2: objective account and verified publication, agree with many points.

 

[undercover JIX]

Article 1 : unverified aurthor, biased content
Article 2: objective account and verified publication, agree with many points.

But conclusion, is same in both articles.