Learnings from the skies: What the recent India-Pakistan air strikes reveal

The 4 day recent exchange of air strikes between India and Pakistan has reignited concerns over one of the world’s most volatile borders. These high-stakes high value maneuvers—military in execution but political in intent—offer crucial lessons not just for both nations, but for regional security observers across the globe and for the citizens of both nations.


1. Air Power Is Now a Political Language and the new means of warfare


Air strikes have evolved beyond military operations. India’s decision to launch strikes reflects a strategic shift: using calibrated force to send political messages and willingness of the nation. The strikes aim to reassure its citizens, deter non-state actors, and pressure Pakistan diplomatically and psychologically. This signals a move away from the doctrine of strategic restraint, historically favored by New Delhi, toward a posture of assertive retaliation and a symbol of deterrant. Moreover the immediate test firing on 14th May of low-cost yet effective signifies a massive leap in countering the threat of drone swarms.


2. Escalation Is Easier Than De-escalation


When two nuclear-armed neighbors trade blows, escalation is a hair-trigger away. The strikes revealed how thin the line is between a punitive action and a full-blown conflict. What prevents escalation is not just military restraint, but also backchannel diplomacy, crisis hotlines, and pressure from international allies. Precision air strikes depend entirely on accurate, real-time intelligence. Civilian casualties, disputed impact assessments, or missed targets can undermine the operation’s legitimacy. India’s recent operations—and Pakistan’s rapid counterclaims—underscore the risks of acting on incomplete or politicized intelligence. Strategic credibility is hard-won and easily lost.


3. The War for Narrative Supremacy


Even before the jets, missiles and drone land, the media war takes off. State-backed narratives, viral misinformation, and social media frenzy dominate public perception. Both sides rushed to frame the narrative: one claiming victory, the other denying damage. In this arena, perception often matters more than facts. It also makes responsible journalism—and digital literacy—more important than ever. One of the more evident narratives of the rafale jets being shot down being picked up by newspaper agencies like Reuters etc., a claim which still cannot be verified.


4. Deterrence Is Not a Straight Line



Did the strikes deter future attacks or simply set a new normal for retaliation? That remains to be seen. Deterrence in South Asia is complicated by non-state actors, domestic politics, and historical grievances. What’s clear is that air strikes, by themselves, cannot replace long-term conflict resolution. While militaries trade blows, civilians bear the brunt. The strikes highlight the lack of preparedness in border regions—be it bomb shelters, evacuation protocols, or emergency medical infrastructure. In an era of high-speed conflict, the civilian front must not be an afterthought.


5. Diplomacy Is the Final Safety Net


Global reactions, particularly from the U.S., Gulf nations, and China, played a quiet but critical role in managing the fallout. Their calls for restraint, combined with behind-the-scenes mediation, likely prevented further escalation. The lesson is clear: military actions may dominate headlines, but diplomacy shapes outcomes.


6. Time to Rebuild De-escalation Mechanisms


The air strikes revealed a dangerous vacuum: the absence of robust crisis management protocols. Confidence-building measures (CBMs), military hotlines, and bilateral dialogues—many of which have atrophied over the years—must be revived. Without structured communication, the risk of miscalculation rises.
Finally, the recent air strikes are a reminder that peace in South Asia remains fragile, reactive, and easily disrupted. While tactical moves may earn short-term advantages, the long-term stability of the region depends on sustained diplomacy, mutual restraint, and a willingness to invest in peace—not just war preparedness.