Connect with us

Defense

Overviewing India’s Military Modernization: 2019 and Beyond

Published

on

On 10th of January, Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat gave the statement that the military is launching war games next month to test ‘structures geared towards sudden and swift offensives into enemy territory by Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs)’. These new structures will be “validated” in military exercises on the ground in May, 2019’. He further highlighted the three key objectives of these exercises: to be prepared for future warfare by strengthening Indian military capabilities, become more efficient and better manage its defence budget which shows that India is trying to prepare itself for military conflict against Pakistan.

Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs) are self-contained fighting units, comprising of major elements of military with close support of the air force and if need arises expanded to include naval forces. He further said that ‘after military exercises they will go to the government and take their sanction to restructure traditional divisions into permanent IBGs’.

South Asian region witnesses complex and hostile relations between India and Pakistan due to a number of historical and political events.  Indeed, both hostile states have over 100 nuclear warheads; have gone to war four times since independence, in addition to several other standoffs, skirmishes and crises that nearly escalated into conflict. This new statement from Indian side provides the latest reminder of hostility between two India and Pakistan.

General Rawat’s statement somehow raises concerns in Pakistan because the proposed Integrated Battle Groups are the foundation of Indian offensive military doctrine, which involves initiating rapid military offence from multiple fronts by exploiting the element of surprise and leaving Pakistan with neither the time to respond nor the defensive resources to stop those multiple attacks. Indian intention to operationalize IBG is a way of parlaying Pakistan’s nuclear gamesmanship through proactive war.

The timing of General Bipin statement is very noteworthy as in January 2017; General Rawat appeared to acknowledge the existence of Cold Start. Before that, the Indian political and military establishments have not officially sanctioned the doctrine. General Bipin said that CSD exists for conventional military operations. His more recent statement about IBGs exercises seem to solidify further that Indian is in its path towards implementation of its offensive military strategy.

Indian military doctrine Cold Start is to fight short duration of conventional war with Pakistan under the nuclear shadow. Cold Start Doctrine involves restructuring of its defensive formations of army stationed near to the international borders, expansion of its offensive capability with higher mobility, make preliminary gains by exploiting the element of surprise and more focus on combined operations of air-land forces. Military offensive power of India is consisted of three strike corps, an armored division each with mechanized infantry and extensive artillery support. Holding corps operate as defensive corps stationed closed to the international border and primarily meant for enemy penetrations. Indian Cold Start Doctrine would require reorganization of the Indian military offensive power into eight small sized battle groups called IBGs that combine mechanized infantry, artillery, and armor.

Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat official confirmation about the existence and validity of offensive military doctrine Cold Start a year before, justified Pakistan’s development of Short Range Ballistic Missiles “Nasr”. Pakistan tactical nuclear weapons have a definite capability to deter India’s aggressive military action.

As seen that after Modi Government, India is more assertive towards Pakistan. They have claimed to conduct surgical strikes inside Pakistan which is yet doubtful. If India continues its assertive behavior towards Pakistan, Islamabad can expect any kind of Indian conventional military attack. Again the Indian general election is going to happen in April/May this year, Pakistan is undoubtedly a subject of relevance in the India’s 2019 general elections.

During the BJP government, anti-Pakistan sentiments have flared in New Delhi on multiple occasions, prompting many of the members from the BJP to perpetuate such sentiments overtly.  Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has made several offers for talks but India repeatedly rebuffed such attempts. Because a step towards normalizing the relationship with Islamabad could be used against the government by the opposition parties, and deteriorating the vote bank of BJP government. General Bipin statement in this scenario is very significant because this is the one way to do stirring up nationalistic sentiments among the people.

Hence, India has made noticeable strides towards operationalising the Cold Start Doctrine which includes weapon and equipment procurements, forward leaning posture by constructing cantonment near the international border and shifting of logistical units, depots to forward locations and recent announcement to restructuring of traditional armed forces to IBGs. This implies that India is fast moving towards fully operationalizing the Cold Start Doctrine by meeting all the requirements to successfully implement such a strategy. However, to what extent it can dent the Pakistani defenses or to what extend it can achieve its stated objectives remains a different proposition which remains a subject of debate and is difficult to predict with certainty.

So far India is not ready for any limited, quick and swift warfare operations. India lack adequate offensive elements in their overall military. Most of the Indian offensive military capabilities are under process. It could be assumed that by 2025, New Delhi would be able to fulfill its deficiencies in its army and air force capabilities and would be able to launch joint military and air force operation with the support of political leadership capabilities. Presently, India need more time to fill the operational gaps to bring into practice its CSD. It can be said that India changed its military doctrine only to threaten Pakistan not for initiation of limited conflict against Pakistan.

Lastly, Nasr (TNW) holds peculiar position as far as Indian military’s Cold start doctrine is concerned. The induction and deployment of Tactical nuclear weapons would checkmate CSD and prevent India from any misadventure.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

The Proxy War of Libya: Unravelling the Complexities

Published

on

The African continent has been infamous for its desolate conditions and impoverished lifestyle for years. The violence has not spared the region either since the extremely unstable Middle-East has set the vendetta throughout the region, verging Africa in the east. Whether it comes to the spreading influence of ISIS under the flag of Boko Haram; a terrorist organisation operating in Chad and North-eastern Nigeria, or the rampant corruption scandals and ream of military cops in Zimbabwe, the region rivals the instability of its eastern neighbour. However, one conflict stands out in Northern Africa, in terms of high-stake involvement of foreign powers and policies that have riven the country, not unlike Syria in the Middle-East. Libya is one instance in Africa that has faced the civil war for almost a decade yet involves not only local powers but is also a focal point that has caused the NATO powers to be at odds.

Libya, officially recognised as the ‘State of Libya’, is a war-torn country in the Northern periphery of the African continent. The country is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea in the North, Egypt lies to its East and Sudan and Tunisia border in the Southeast and Northwest respectively. Apparent from the topography, Libya stands as an epicentre to the countries ridden with conflicts, stands the ground that was the central root of the infamous Arab Spring uprisings taking a rebellious storm right off its borders in Tunisia back in 2011. While the NATO-led campaign garnered success in overthrowing the notorious dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, and thus bringing the draconian regime to an end, it failed to account for the brewing rebels and militias in pockets throughout the state of Libya.

Over the following years, weaponry and ammunition was widely pervaded across the region in spite of strict embargo placed. The pilling artillery and unregulated rebels cycled the instability in the country leading to the successive governments to fail and eventually split the country in two dominant positions: The UN-recognised Government National Accord (GNA), led by Tripoli-based leader and prime minister Fayez Al-Sarraj, and the Libyan National Army (LNA), led by the tailing ally and successor to Gaddafi, General Khalifa Haftar.

While both GNA and LNA vied for the control on Libya, foreign powers involved rather similar to the labyrinth of stakes in Syria, each state split over the side supporting their part of the story and ultimately serving their arching purpose of interference in the region. Despite of the ruling regime of Al-Sarraj since the controversial election win of GNA in 2016, Haftar-led LNA controls an expansive territory and has been launching offensive attacks against the GNA alliance. GNA enjoys the support of US, Turkey, Qatar and Italy; each serving either ideological support or military backing to secure the elected government of Libya. Meanwhile, LNA is backed by Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and France. While the western powers see GNA as an economically stabilising solution to the Libyan crisis, Russia and France eye Haftar as a key ally to expand influence in the African region and reap control of the oil-rich resources under control of Haftar’s troops in the oil-crescent territory.

The Turkish regime, on the other hand, eye Libya as a direct answer to the Russian influence in the Syrian war that has been pushing the Kurdish alliance stronger along and within the southern borders of Turkey. This has led to recent clashes and direct escalation in the proxy war waged in Syria. Turkey plans to incentivise the leveraging position against Russia in Libya by deploying military advisory to Tripoli to strengthen their position against the Russian-backed Haftar to ultimately deter the alliance from spreading far in the African region.

The power split in Libya was exacerbated in 2017 following the Gulf crisis that led to the boycott of Qatar by the Arab quartet led by Saudi Arabia. Libya stood as a battle ground for both strategic and military positions to one up the other alliance in external power games while the internal matters of Libya are long forgotten and population left clueless and desperate for welfare. Since then, the vested interests in Libya have side-lined yet the peace process has been encouraged by both UN and Merkel-led ‘Berlin process’ in support to the UN efforts to restore peace in Libya. However, the strained relations and foreign demarcation is still apparent even though no escalation has been in action for months.

Now the ceasefires have been in talks for a while and except for a few skirmishes, the powers have been curbed since June 2020. The silence could imply room for diplomatic efforts to push a much-awaited resolve to this complex proxy war. With the recent turn of events in the global political canvas, wheels of the betterment might turn in favour of Libya. Saudi Arabia has recently joined hands with Qatar, opening all borders to the estranged ally and resuming diplomatic relations. Turkey is eying the coveted spot in the European Union since the UK exit. The US in redefining its policies under the revitalising administration of Joseph Biden while Russia deals with the tensed relations with the Gulf since the oil price war shattered the mutual understanding shared for years. The core players of the Libyan Proxy war are dormant and may remain passive due to external complexities to handle. Yet, with regional powers like Egypt threatening invasions in Libya and both GNA and LNA showing no interest in negotiation, a conclusive end to the Libyan crisis is still farfetched.

Continue Reading

Defense

Pakistan Army’s Ranking improved

Published

on

According to data issued by the group on its official website, Pakistan Army has been ranked the 10th most powerful in the world out of 133 countries on the Global Firepower index 2021.Especially the Special Services Group (SSG) is among the best in the world.  Just behind; 1- United States PwrIndx: 0.0721,  2- Russia PwrIndx: 0.0796, 3- China PwrIndx: 0.0858, 4- India PwrIndx: 0.1214, 5- Japan PwrIndx: 0.1435, 6- South Korea PwrIndx: 0.1621, 7- France PwrIndx: 0.1691, 8- United Kingdom PwrIndx: 0.2008, 9- Brazil PwrIndx: 0.2037, 10- Pakistan PwrIndx: 0.2083.

Global Firepower (GFP) list relies on more than 50 factors to determine a nation’s Power Index (‘PwrIndx’) score with categories ranging from military might and financials to logistical capability and geography.

Our unique, in-house formula allows for smaller, more technologically-advanced, nations to compete with larger, lesser-developed ones. In the form of bonuses and penalties, special modifiers are applied to further refine the annual list. Color arrows indicate a year-over-year trend comparison.

The geopolitical environment, especially the regional security situation, is quite hostile. Pakistan is bordering India, a typical adversary and has not accepted Pakistan’s independence from the core of heart, and always trying to damage Pakistan. The Kashmir issue is a long standing issue between the two rivals. On the other hand, the Afghan situation is a permanent security threat for Pakistan. Bordering Iran means always facing a danger of aggression from the US or Israel on Iran, resulting in vulnerabilities in Pakistan. The Middle East is a hot burning region and posing instability in the region. The growing tension between China and the US is also a source of a major headache for Pakistan.

Under such a scenario, Pakistan has to be very conscious regarding its security and sovereignty. Although Pakistan’s ailing economy is not supporting its defense needs, it may not compromise strategic issues for its survival. Pakistan focuses on the quality of its forces instead of quantity. The tough training makes a real difference—the utilization of Science and Technology-enabled Pakistan to maintain its supremacy.

Pakistan is situated at a crucial location – the entrance point to the oil-rich Arabian Gulf is just on the major trading route for energy. Pakistan is at the conjunction of Africa, Europe, Eurasia, Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia, and China. Pakistan is a pivotal state and always focus of world powers.

During the cold war era, Pakistan sided with the US and protected the region’s American interests. The US military establishment knows well that as long as Pakistan stands with the US, it can achieve all its strategic goals in the region. However, It was the American choice to give more importance to India and ignore Pakistan.

Pakistan is a peace-loving nation and struggling for the promotion of peace globally. Pakistan always raises its voice at the UN and other international forums for oppressed ones and against any injustice. Pakistan. In the history of seven decades, Pakistan was never involved in any aggression against any country. Pakistan’s official stance is, “We are partner for peace with any country, any nation, or individuals.” Pakistan is a partner and supporter of any peace-initiative in any part of the world. 

However, Pakistan is always prepared to protect its territorial integrity and will not allow any aggressor to harm our sovereignty at any cost. Pakistan is determined for its independence and geographical integrity.

Pakistan is no threat to any country or nation. Neither have any intention of expansion. But always ready to give a tough time to any aggressor.

Continue Reading

Defense

Israel continues its air strikes against Syria after Biden’s inauguration: What’s next?

Published

on

A family of four, including two children, died as a result of an alleged Israeli air strike on Hama in northwestern Syria on Friday, January 22, Syrian media said. In addition, four people were injured and three civilian houses were destroyed.

According to a military source quoted by Syrian outlets, Israel launched an air strike at 4 a.m. on Friday from the direction of Lebanese city of Tripoli against some targets on the outskirts of Hama city.

“Syrian air defense systems confronted an Israeli air aggression and shot down most of the hostile missiles,” the source said.

The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post reported that there were loud sounds of explosions in the area.

In turn, the Israel Defense Forces declined to comment on alleged strikes resulted in the death of Syrian citizens.

Over the past time, Israel significantly stepped up its aerial bombardment. This incident was the fifth in a series of Israeli air attacks on targets in Syria in the past month and the first after the inauguration of the U.S. President Joe Biden. Foreign analysts and military experts said that Tel Aviv intensified air strikes on Syria, taking advantage of the vacuum of power in the United States on the eve of Biden taking office as president.

While the Donald Trump administration turned a blind eye on such aggression, a change of power in the United States could remarkably limit Israel in conducting of military operations against Syria and Iran-affiliated armed groups located there. As it was stated during his presidential campaign, Joe Biden intends to pursue a more conciliatory foreign policy towards Iran. In particular, he unequivocally advocated the resumption of the nuclear deal with the Islamic republic. In this regard, Tel Aviv’s unilateral actions against Iranian interests in Syria could harm Washington’s plans to reduce tensions with Tehran.

By continuing air strikes against Iranian targets in Syria, Israel obviously sent a massage to the United States that Tel Aviv will consistently run anti-Iran policy, even if it will be in conflict with the interests of the Joe Biden administration. On the other hand, such Israeli behavior threatens to worsen relations with the United States, its main ally.

In the nearest future, the US reaction on the Israeli belligerent approach toward Iran will likely determine whether the relations between Tehran, Tel Aviv and Washington will get better or the escalation will continue.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

News19 mins ago

Security Council reforms must reflect 21st century realities

The President of the General Assembly, on Monday, underscored the importance of effectiveness and efficiency for all bodies of the...

Finance2 hours ago

Economic Inclusion Programs Now Benefit 92 Million People Worldwide

Economic inclusion programs, which help boost income and assets of the world’s poorest, are on the rise in 75 countries,...

New Social Compact4 hours ago

Meritocracy in the Age of Mediocrity

Authors: Ash Narain Roy and Sophia Thomas* Meritocracy, political theorist Hannah Arendt famously says, “contradicts the principle of equality. Without...

Health & Wellness5 hours ago

New COVID-19 strains ‘poised to unleash’ more severe infections

Since September, the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened, infecting close to 100 million people, costing more than...

Reports6 hours ago

Health, Jobs and Environment Top Personal Risk List

A new World Economic Forum/Ipsos survey found most adults are optimistic about accessing technology, digital tools and training in the...

Finance7 hours ago

Global Business Leaders Committing to Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics

A growing coalition of 61 top business leaders across industries announced today their commitment to the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, a...

Russia8 hours ago

For a Resilient Recovery and Long-term Prosperity, Russia Must Invest in All its People

Alexei is a young man living in a suburb of Moscow, where he was born and raised. His estimated life...

Trending