Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
India vs. Pakistan: Rising tensions in South Asia
Could tensions between India and Pakistan boil back over into military conflict? Last May, India launched a wave of missile attacks into Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, claiming it was targeting terrorist infrastructure. After four days of dangerous escalation, both sides accepted a ceasefire, putting an end to the most serious military crisis in decades between the two rival nuclear states. On GZERO World, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Khar joins Ian Bremmer to discuss Pakistan’s perspective and where the conflict stands now.
Khar argues India didn’t provide credible evidence to justify the attacks and that Pakistan’s response challenged the narrative of India’s conventional military superiority. She sees China as a stabilizing force in the region and says it’s important for Pakistan to maintain broader strategic relationships within southeast Asia and the West, including the United States. Though the conflict has cooled, nerves are still on edge in Delhi and Islamabad. Now, more than ever, Khar says, it’s crucial for Pakistan to continue to strengthen its military capabilities, including nuclear deterrence, to defend its sovereignty.
“The India-Pakistan region is home to one fifth of humanity, and to put them at stake because of political engineering happening in your own country is very callous,” Khar says, “The moment one nuclear state decides to attack another, you do not know how quickly you go up the escalation ladder.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube.Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Pakistan needs to stand up to India, says former Foreign Minister Hina Khar
After nearly eight decades of on-again-off-again conflict, India and Pakistan neared the brink of all-out war last spring. The intense, four-day conflict was an unsettling reminder of the dangers of military escalation between two nuclear-armed adversaries. Though the ceasefire was reached and both sides claimed victory, Delhi and Islamabad are still on edge and tensions remain high. On the GZERO World Podcast, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Khar joins Ian Bremmer to discuss Pakistan’s response to India’s strikes, which she believes were unjustified, and why Pakistan needs to defend itself from further aggression.
One fifth of the world’s population lives on the Indian subcontinent, and Khar says putting them at stake because of a political conflict is dangerous because “you do not know how quickly you can go up the escalation ladder.” Bremmer and Khar also discuss the US role in mediating the conflict with India, Pakistan’s domestic and economic challenges, its strategic partnership with China, and the dangers for global security if the world abandons a rules-based international order.
“As someone who was representing this country as foreign minister, I used to wonder, why were we reduced to eating grass to become a nuclear power?” Khar says, “And now, that is the only thing providing deterrence and security against a country which feels it can attack us anytime, any day.”
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published
Why India and Pakistan can't get along
When–and why–did India and Pakistan become bitter rivals? The Indian subcontinent is home to some 1.5 billion people who share deep cultural, linguistic and historical ties, but for nearly eight decades, the Indian-Pakistan relationship has been marked by tension, violence, and sometimes all-out war. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down the complicated history of the India-Pakistan conflict to understand why tensions are once again rising after a military clash between the two countries in May 2025.
There are many complex reasons that India and Pakistan have become such bitter rivals. Bremmer unpacks four key issues: the partition after nearly two-centuries of British colonial rule, contested claims over the Kashmir region, the development of nuclear weapons, and leaders stoking nationalist and religious tensions for political gain. A terrorist attack in Kashmir last spring led to an exchange of military strikes and showed the world just how dangerous escalation between two nuclear powers can be. Watch Ian Explains to understand the roots of the conflict and why decades of tensions and war probably won’t be resolved any time soon.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi enter a hall for a family photo before a plenary session of the BRICS 2024 Summit in Kazan, Russia, on October 23, 2024.
What happened to that Pakistan-India war?
It’s been 18 days since India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire which ended the clashes that had killed dozens on either side of the de facto border in Kashmir. But while the guns are silent, the two arch rivals are still locked in a war of words, with each dispatching officials abroad to shape the narrative.
What’s happened since the ceasefire? The physical fighting – which erupted after a terror attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan – has mostly paused. There were reports of violence in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, but neither government was fazed – they each stood by the ceasefire.
Even so, India-Pakistan relations have dropped to a new nadir, punctuated by New Delhi’s refusal to reinstate the Indus Waters Treaty. The pact outlines how each country can use reserves from the Indus river – without it, Pakistan is at risk of losing access, in the long run, to virtually its only water source. Signed in 1960, the agreement has survived several rounds of conflicts between these warring neighbors – including ones worse than this latest flare up – yet there are no signs that it will be patched back together this time.
“Pakistan will not be given the water which is rightfully India’s,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said last week, dampening Pakistan’s hopes of maintaining unfiltered access to a river basin that waters 90% of its crops.
So why the foreign missions? Islamabad is highlighting the importance of its own security, adding that it wants to ensure long-term peace and renew the water treaty. It seeks to pile the blame on New Delhi.
Modi’s crew rebukes these claims, and reiterates its belief that the Pakistani government has boosted terrorist groups in the area – the Indian prime minister said on Tuesday that this terrorism has been a part of Pakistan’s strategy since the country’s inception.
Who are India and Pakistan making their cases to? India is flooding the zone (shoutout, Stephen Miller), sending parliamentary delegations to 33 countries, including a raft of European heavyweights like Germany and Russia. Pakistan is being a little more selective: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visited Turkey – a close ally – on Sunday, while his deputy was in China last week.
Pakistan’s Trump card. Given his disparaging comments about Pakistan during his first term, US President Donald Trump’s return to office wasn’t expected to be a boon for Islamabad. Yet he has changed his tune, striking a more diplomatic tone between the two South Asian nuclear powers when the US has previously sided more with India over China-backed Pakistan.
It also just so happens a Trump family-backed business inked a crypto deal with Pakistan. Maybe that was just a coincidence. Either way, India isn’t pleased – which may explain its decision to barnstorm across Europe in search of non-US support.
Could the fighting recommence? It’s not outside the realm of possibility, if the rhetoric is any indicator. Modi wasn’t exactly conciliatory during an address on Monday, when he told Pakistanis to “eat bread peacefully, or else my bullet is there.” Pakistan hardly seems to be backing down, either: army leader Asim Munir, an influential figure who emphasizes sectarian differences, just had his term extended from three to five years, in a move that suggests further skirmishes could ensue.
So why the big messaging offensive? Does someone just want the air miles? It’s not clear if the diplomatic press is meant to engage global powers in mediation, or if it’s to line up backers in anticipation of another bout of flighting. Either way, neither side seems keen for all-out war nor a long-lasting peace – it looks instead like they want the Goldilocks scenario between the two.
Trump's weekend of geopolitical success
Lots of headline announcements from Trump himself, and the biggest one in terms of the markets is not necessarily something you'd call a success. It's more a backtrack, but a useful backtrack nonetheless and one that we're all glad to see. Trump, of course, kicked off this global trade war with pretty much everyone, but especially with the Chinese, where he was essentially talking about a decoupling between the two largest economies in the world, raising tariffs against China to 145%, meaning nobody's going to buy any goods from China. Chinese doing the same against the Americans, raising up to 125%.
China was not going to pick up the phone to call Trump, and he was surprised that they hit back. He thought that this was going to lead to a negotiation and much more careful caution from the Chinese. As you saw from a lot of American allies around the world, not the case. And so, not only did he get his own administration to respond and talk with the Chinese and say, "We'd like to engage in person." But also sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Jamieson Greer, US Trade Rep, by far the most capable on the trade side that are senior and report to Trump.
And after a couple of days of meetings in Geneva, we've got 90 days off, and we have 125% off the American tariffs. So, we're at, what? 30% or 115% off, or 30% for the Americans, 10% for the Chinese. In other words, trade can happen again. And a joint statement from the US and Chinese governments, which is very rare under any government, frankly, with China, certainly with an adversary, to show that there is no daylight on the desire to pull back against decoupling, and also to engage directly between the two countries over the coming months to try to ensure that these trade gets to a mutually more respectful place.
Now, what's interesting is Trump had been trying to push so many allies around the world to align with the US on decoupling from China as part of the trade negotiations, that obviously, that piece of the negotiations isn't going to move anywhere. Japan pushed back, most countries aren't interested, certainly not the Europeans. Now, it's not really going to be credible, and I think Trump will quietly drop it, and the markets of course shoot up as a consequence of that.
So, two steps forward, two steps back. We're kind of where we were before Liberation Day on US-China. Yes, there are some additional sectoral tariffs, and this is going to be costly. But on the bilateral relationship, frankly, not an enormous amount has actually changed. Okay, so that's not a win.
What do I mean that he's had successful time on the global stage? Well, internationally, there've been a bunch of wins. India, Pakistan, significant escalation on the back of this Kashmiri terrorist incident, with lots of Indians getting killed, Indian civilians. The Indians respond by hitting Pakistani terrorist targets, according to India, but in civilian locations, so they don't mind that Pakistani civilians are getting killed. Then Pakistan responded, then India responded, and the Americans stepped in and facilitated a ceasefire.
Marco Rubio probably his single win on the global stage that we've seen so far, helps him with Trump. He also announced there would be trilateral engagement going forward between the countries. That's not going to happen. But we are, I would say again, at the status quo ante on Pakistan, India at this time, the Americans facilitated.
The Houthis had been threatening US and other shipping through the Red Sea. The Americans decided to blow up lots of Houthis military leadership capabilities. That was the Signal Gate leak that came out. And a few weeks after that, the Houthis said, "Okay, we won't attack the shipping lanes anymore, as long as you stop attacking us." That's a win for the United States. It was facilitated by Iran, who's engaged in direct bilateral negotiations with the United States right now, and Iran in a much worse position geopolitically, the Gulf states would love to see that happening. They're hosting Trump this week. That's likely to progress significantly. Maybe even Trump will meet with high-level Iranians. We'll see if we get a surprise there. But nonetheless, that's all in a much better position than it was before. And so too relations between the Gulf States and the US. Saudi US bilateral relations, including a willingness to allow for nuclear energy and development in Saudi Arabia.
Lots of new investments that are going to be announced with all three stops. Yes, there's this unfortunate announcement of a gift that shouldn't be accepted from Qatar of a 747. And then that's going to wrap up the first trip that Trump makes internationally, as well as the release of the sole remaining US hostage in Gaza. And that had been driven by the Israelis together with the US and the US angry with Netanyahu, who's continuing to engage in a war and taking over lots of territory in Gaza and not allowing humanitarian aid in. The Americans deciding they were going to negotiate directly for themselves, and with success before that trip.
So, all of those things, announcements that are frankly welcome. And the one big conflict where we're not seeing progress is Russia, Ukraine. It is plausible that there will be a bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky on Thursday. Zelensky is calling for it, the Europeans, the Americans are calling for it directly. Let's see if Putin actually shows up, or if he says, "I want to do a lower level meeting to start." Either way, it looks very unlikely that he's going to actually accept a ceasefire on terms that would be remotely acceptable by the Ukrainians, the Europeans, or even the United States, which means not much progress there.
But at least Trump not willing to do a deal with Putin absent a ceasefire, which means the Americans, the Europeans, and even the Ukrainians are more aligned today than they were a week ago, two weeks ago. Certainly during that shambolic Zelensky visit to the Oval just a few weeks back. So, good news over the weekend, and some good news coming this week. And I'm personally delighted to be able to report some things that are positive about what's happening in Trump administration, as opposed to things that are breaking and things that are falling apart. Let's hope that continues. I'll talk to you all real soon.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer address the media after trade talks with China in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 11, 2025.
The US hits the reset button with China
Mother’s Day is a time to build bridges, apparently, as the United States and China both agreed to slash tariffs by 115 percentage points each for 90 days following talks in Geneva over the weekend. US tariffs on Chinese imports will plunge from 145% to 30%, while Chinese tariffs on US imports will sink from 125% to 10%.
What’s spurring a settlement? Both countries’ economies have taken a hit ever since the two countries started a trade war around a month ago.
Will businesses buy the truce? At the height of the US-China trade war last month, Apple said they will shift iPhone production to India. We’ll be watching to see if there’s any plans to reverse course.
Bloodbath or breakthrough? Ukraine demands truce before talks
Peace talks between Ukraine and Russia are tentatively scheduled for May 15 in Istanbul, where Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky says he’ll be waiting to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But Kyiv insists that an unconditional 30-day ceasefire take effect as of Monday – a condition Moscow has so far rejected.
What’s the White House view? US President Donald Trump called on Ukraine to accept Russia’s offer to meet regardless of a truce, “to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH.”
But does Russia really want peace? Iran is reportedly preparing to send Fath-360 missile launchers to Moscow, though Tehran denies this. If true, it casts doubt on Moscow's commitment to ending the conflict.
Speaking of the Middle East, Hamas said it would free Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage, ahead of Trump’s visit to the region this week. It’s unclear what Hamas is getting in return.
Doubts loom over Kashmir truce
India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire in Kashmir on Saturday after the worst fighting in the disputed region in over two decades. The US claimed to have brokered the deal; however, India downplayed its role while Pakistan lauded Washington’s involvement.
But can it hold? The current truce is fragile: leaders from each side said they were keeping the peace, yet explosions were reported in the area. There may be peace for now, but all parties have their work cut out to maintain it.
A damaged portion of Bilal Mosque is seen after it was hit by an Indian strike in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on May 7, 2025.
India launches strikes on Pakistan
It was never going to end quietly: India early on Wednesday bombed what it said were nine militant sites within Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, reportedly killing at least 26 people in the worst clash between the two countries in decades.
Warning signs. India launched the strikes in retaliation for a terrorist rampage in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir last month. Pakistan says it had nothing to do with that attack.
Pakistani response now inbound. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called the Indian airstrikes an “act of war,” and has reportedly authorized the military to respond in kind.
Reaction from abroad. Major countries including the US, Japan, France, and China – which has close ties to Pakistan but borders both countries – called for restraint. Israel notably issued its unequivocal support for India and its right to self defense.
What will happen next? “Pakistan has traditionally responded with a tit for tat response, normally a bombing run on a minor target on Indian soil,” said Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Eurasia Group’s South Asia practice head. However, Chaudhuri doesn’t expect the fighting to last long.
“Both sides are nuclear armed, neither has overwhelming military dominance and both lack the economic or political interest in a sustained conflict,” said Chaudhuri. “These skirmishes tend to die out within 24 to 48 hours.”
Indian paramilitary soldiers patrol along a road in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 29, 2025.
India and Pakistan inch toward a major clash
Nerves are fraught throughout Pakistan after authorities said Wednesday they have “credible intelligence” that India plans to launch military strikes on its soil by Friday, fueling fears of an outright clash between the two nuclear-armed archrivals. Troops from both sides have been exchanging fire in the disputed territory of Kashmir since a terrorist attack in the Indian-controlled section killed 26 civilians last Tuesday. Both China and the US are calling for restraint.
Tensions are spiraling rapidly. India closed its airspace to Pakistan on Wednesday and ordered nearly all Pakistani citizens to leave the country last week. Pakistan – while denying any involvement in the attacks – also canceled visas last week for most Indian citizens in retaliation. The scenes of rapid flight evoked painful memories of the 1947 Partition when Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India fled bloody ethnic massacres in the newly formed nations.
How bad could it get? The two countries have had two major wars, in 1965 and 1971, both of which India won, in the latter case quite decisively. In the ensuing decades, however, India has utterly outstripped Pakistan economically, militarily, and diplomatically, which means that Islamabad’s chances of prevailing in a conventional confrontation are very slim.
The balance of power shifted nonetheless when Pakistan began developing nuclear weapons in 1972 to match the India program begun in 1967. This has prevented a full-scale attack ever since. When the two sides went to war in 1999, hostilities lasted just over two months and were geographically limited to the Himalayas. If New Delhi should be foolish enough to existentially threaten its neighbor, it raises the grim – albeit unlikely – prospect of a nuclear exchange.
We’re watching for a limited engagement, but we’re far from sanguine about the risks.