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........

© Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü