Pakistan’s Expanding Global Role After Last Year’s War with India

One year ago, on April 22, 2025, after gunmen attacked tourists in the Pahalgam region of Indian-administered Kashmir and killed 26 people, the Indian government blamed Pakistan for the assault. Islamabad strongly rejected the accusations, describing the incident as a “false flag” operation and demanding evidence. On May 7, 2025, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” targeting Pakistan’s interior regions and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Pakistan responded with “Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos.”

Pakistan’s success in the counteroffensive — including reportedly shooting down six advanced Indian fighter jets, establishing aerial superiority, and deploying electromagnetic weapons — and India’s inability to cope with this level of preparation shocked the world. The four-day conflict ended on May 10 with a ceasefire brokered by the United States. In Pakistan, the war came to be known as “Marka-e-Haq” (“The Battle of Truth”).

Before May 2025, many Indians, as well as outside observers, believed that India, with its population of 1.5 billion, possessed overwhelming superiority over Pakistan. The numbers appeared to support this view: India had nearly six times Pakistan’s population; 2,229 aircraft compared to Pakistan’s 1,400; 1,450,000 active military personnel against Pakistan’s 640,000; and 172 nuclear warheads compared to Pakistan’s 170. Yet the war once again demonstrated that numerical superiority does not guarantee absolute victory. During the conflict, the Indian side claimed that Turkish-supplied missiles, drones, and electromagnetic weapons provided to Pakistan played a decisive role in shaping the outcome of the war, though Türkiye never officially confirmed these allegations.

On the first anniversary of the ceasefire, both sides continue to celebrate victory. As is well known, wars are instruments of interstate rivalry and power struggles, generally fought to achieve religious, national, political, and economic objectives. From this perspective, the success of the belligerents must be measured by whether they achieved their intended goals. An assessment made one year after the Pakistan-India war reveals which side emerged from the conflict with gains and which with losses.

Evaluating the War from India’s Perspective

The postwar process demonstrated that the global support and sympathy expected by India — which presents itself as “the world’s most advanced democracy” — did not materialize at the desired level. Media analyses conducted by Indian experts were met with surprise when they showed that international public opinion largely interpreted the war in Pakistan’s favor.

Within the framework of U.S.-China competition in the Indo-Pacific region, India had long been viewed as America’s “natural ally.” However, throughout the four-day war, the Trump administration adopted a stance urging restraint from both sides and, indirectly, appeared to align with a position similar to China’s. On August 6, U.S. President Donald Trump increased tariffs on Indian imports by an additional 25 percent, raising the total tariff rate to 50 percent, as punishment for India’s purchase of cheap crude oil from Russia.

During this process, it became evident that only two of India’s strategic partners remained firmly by its side: Israel and Russia.

The India-Israel Strategic Partnership

Immediately after the Pahalgam attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Prime Minister Narendra Modi and stated that Israel would provide any assistance necessary. During the operation, India utilized Israeli-made missiles, air defense systems, drones, and intelligence support.

Unable to secure the global support it had anticipated during and after the war, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid a visit on February 25–26 to Israel, which had become increasingly isolated internationally. Shortly before this visit, Netanyahu announced the “Hexagonal Alliance” project, which would include India, several Arab and African countries, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus (GCASC). Netanyahu’s positioning of India as a “key ally” and a “global power” within this proposed alliance attracted significant attention.

However, an “anti-Islamic alliance” built around Israel would carry major risks for India. A substantial portion of India’s trade is conducted with Gulf countries, and millions of Indian citizens work in the region. Such an alliance appears likely to inflict lasting damage on India’s relations with the 2-billion-strong Muslim world.

The India-Russia Strategic Partnership

During the tensions that began on April 22, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed hope that the two countries would de-escalate the situation while emphasizing that India remained a strategic partner for Russia. Because of the relationship described as a “special and privileged strategic partnership,” Russia has supported India in every war against Pakistan and has consistently vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions unfavorable to India.

India remains heavily dependent on Russia for military procurement. Approximately 60–70 percent of its current military inventory consists of Soviet or Russian-made weaponry, while Russia still supplies nearly 45 percent of India’s defense imports. India’s decision in December 2025 to lease a nuclear-powered attack submarine from Russia for ten years elevated military relations to a new level.

Following the war, during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India on December 4–5, 2025, the existing strategic partnership was further reinforced. Russia guaranteed India long-term supplies of oil, fertilizer, critical minerals, and nuclear reactors.

Evaluating the War from Pakistan’s Perspective

Pakistan emerged from this process with strengthened national unity and increased international prestige.

Military and Administrative Transformation

The war’s first major consequence became evident in the restructuring of the state apparatus. Army Chief Asim Munir, rewarded for wartime success, was granted the rank of Field Marshal on May 20, 2025, and appointed Commander of the Defence Forces (CDF). Through constitutional amendments, he was also granted lifelong immunity, making him the most powerful figure in Pakistan.

While India found itself confined to limited relations with Israel and Russia after the war, Pakistan — under the leadership of Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif — deepened its ties with global and regional powers including the United States, China, the Gulf states, Iran, Türkiye, and Egypt, transforming itself into a diplomatic center watched closely by the entire world.

Strategic Partnership with China

Chinese-made J-10 fighter jets, jointly produced JF-17 aircraft, and PL-15 missiles played a critical role in Pakistan’s wartime success. This cooperation, deepened through Gwadar Port, increased Pakistan’s nuclear and technological deterrence capabilities. After the war, defense and diplomatic cooperation between Pakistan and China expanded even further. Pakistan plans to acquire J-35 stealth fighter jets, KJ-500 aircraft, and HQ-19 systems from China in the coming years.

China-Pakistan solidarity has deep historical roots. China has consistently stood beside Pakistan on United Nations platforms and has provided implicit support against India on the Kashmir issue.

Strategic Partnership with Saudi Arabia

Under the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement signed on September 17, 2025 — which included a nuclear protection commitment — Pakistan and Saudi Arabia agreed to treat an attack on one as an attack on both. Within the framework of this agreement, Pakistan deployed 13,000 troops to Saudi Arabia in April 2026, becoming a power that “exports security” to the region; the number of troops is expected to rise to 30,000.

There is ongoing discussion about expanding this alliance into a broader military pact that could also include Türkiye, Qatar, Egypt, and additional regional countries.

Pakistan-U.S. Relations

One month after the ceasefire, during a five-day visit to the United States in June, Field Marshal Asim Munir met U.S. President Donald Trump for a luncheon at the White House. Trump thanked Munir for preventing the conflict with India from escalating into a larger war. He described Munir as “a great warrior” and “a very important man,” adding that he was honored to meet him.

During this visit, Pakistan positioned itself as a useful mediator between Washington, Tehran, and Arab capitals in efforts to resolve the Iran crisis and tensions in the Gulf. Trump stated that Pakistanis “understand Iran better than most people.”

In December, the United States approved the sale of approximately $686 million worth of advanced technology and modernization packages for Pakistan’s F-16 fighter jets, raising cooperation to a new level.

Pakistan’s Role as a Global Mediator

Perhaps the most surprising outcome of the war was Pakistan’s transformation into a key mediator in tensions between the United States and Iran. After launching a war against Iran alongside Israel on February 28 — a conflict that triggered a global energy crisis due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz — Trump turned to Islamabad for assistance.

Acting in coordination with Türkiye, Egypt, and Qatar, Pakistan achieved a major diplomatic success by involving both Western and Eastern (Chinese) powers in the process. China’s contribution, facilitated through Pakistan’s initiative, undermined perceptions that the mediation process was solely shaped by Washington and played a role in persuading Iran to come to the negotiating table.

The efforts of Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in bringing American and Iranian delegations together in Islamabad were considered by many to be nearly impossible.

As of May 2026, although no permanent agreement has yet been reached, the mediation process has strengthened Pakistan’s position as a global middle power and an important geopolitical actor. During this process, India’s attempts to sabotage Pakistan’s image as a “global mediator” did not go unnoticed.

Conclusion

The Pakistan-India war produced consequences far beyond a four-day military conflict. Militarily, the war revealed the strengths and weaknesses of both armies. Pakistan’s use of advanced warfare systems and electronic warfare capabilities prevailed against India’s overwhelming conventional military superiority.

The war also tested the alliances of both states. It became clear that India’s strategic partners were essentially limited to Israel and Russia — a difficult reality for a country aspiring to become a global power. Pakistan, meanwhile, demonstrated itself as a military power backed by both of the world’s rival superpowers, the United States and China, while confidently extending nuclear security to the 2-billion-strong Islamic world.

During this process, India’s strategy of “isolating Pakistan” through black propaganda was exposed as disconnected from reality. A country that India consistently accused of supporting terrorism instead emerged as a contributor to global peace, a state whose success was widely wished for, and a stabilizing diplomatic center in the region.

One year later, the assessment reveals that India was not as powerful as it had imagined itself to be before the war, while Pakistan — despite economic difficulties — proved capable of turning its relationships and geopolitical position into strategic advantages and demonstrated the capacity to emerge as a global “middle power.”