The military and strategic expert, Major General Fayez Al -Duwairi, said that the military worker played a fundamental role in preparing for the ceasefire decision between India and Pakistan, noting that the air clashes between the two sides revealed a fragile balance in the capabilities and confirmed the limited escalation options available to the two parties.
Al -Duwairi explained, in his analysis of the escalation developments, that the aircraft used on both sides belong to the fourth generation, not from the fifth ghost, and that means that the efficiency of the aircraft was not decisive as each party relied on the accompanying technology, radar systems, and the experience of pilots.
He added that Pakistan relied on the developed Chinese JF-17 aircraft equipped with a 145-km missile, while India used Sukhoi, Raval and MiG-29 aircraft, which means that the clash was carried out through the “post-visual vision” technologies, without entering the hostile atmosphere.
The United States announced that Pakistan and India agreed to an immediate ceasefire, following a diplomatic mediation led by US President Donald Trump, amid warnings of the widening of the escalation circle, after mutual shelling and air strikes targeting civil and military facilities in Kashmir and Punjab.
Pakistani superiority
Major General Al -Duwairi considered that the Pakistani qualitative superiority in some technical aspects – especially in radar and missile systems – granted Islamabad a relative advantage during the clash, noting that a Pakistani official stated that they refrained from dropping more planes to avoid expanding the confrontation circle.
He pointed out that what distinguished this confrontation is the commitment of each party to stay within its national air field, as Indian planes did not penetrate the Pakistani atmosphere, and vice versa, due to the long missile range, which determined the rules of engagement and reduced the opportunities for direct confrontation.
The military expert emphasized that the air battle took place over more than one area, from Jammu and Kashmir to Punjab, but it remained within the “controlled boundaries”, in the absence of the intention of decisiveness, and the two parties were keen to avoid a comprehensive war in which they do not have the ability to win.
He explained that the two sides suffer from similar military problems, most notably the deficiency in artillery and accurately guided missiles, which reduced the margin of maneuvering among military leaders, and pushing them to be satisfied with a tour to review force instead of fighting an open war.
Muscle review
He indicated that the battle that lasted for about 100 aircraft from both sides was closer to the capacity test and muscle review, within the framework of a limited and government battle through which each party seeks to avoid appearing in the appearance of the weakest party in front of its opponent.
He pointed out that India excels in terms of quantity and military equipment in most fields, with the exception of nuclear capacity, which constitutes a deterrent balance element for the benefit of Pakistan, which adopts a more flexible nuclear doctrine compared to its Indian counterpart, which adopts the principle of “not starting to use nuclear weapons”.
Al -Duwairi stressed that this deterrent balance, in addition to the absence of the decisive will to fight a comprehensive war, and the presence of effective external mediation, such as American mediation, are all different factors and led to the rapid acceptance of the ceasefire without expanding the confrontation.
He pointed out that both parties were keen to preserve face, by exchanging accounts regarding the shooting down of planes and marches, some of which may be exaggerated or inaccurate, which reflects the desire of each party to appear in the outstanding position without slipping into a battle without a political or military horizon.
Al -Duwairi stressed that the ceasefire was not only the result of political pressure, but was also Walid accurate military accounts in which the two parties realized that the cost of continuing is much higher than the escalation gains, which makes the current situation fragile and capable of explosion again if the calm was not accompanied by firm political solutions.
