In a significant development, the Indian Foreign Ministry said that a high fire agreement between India and Pakistan entered into force on May 10 after the direct conversations between the military leaders of the two countries. At 15:35 IST, the general director of Military Operations of Pakistan (DGMO) called his Indian counterpart. The two parties agreed to stop all military actions, on land, in the sea and in the air, starting at 5:00 p.m. of the same day. Lieutenant General Ghai said that the Indian Armed Forces have so far exercised “immense rest” and that “our actions have been focused, measures and non -staggers.
But only a few hours later, the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, made a sensational announcement about Truth Social, claiming that his team had been successful to mediate the high fire. He described it as a “high and immediate fire” and portrayed it as a diplomatic victory for the United States. Senator Marco Rubio continued, stating that he and vice president JD Vance had helped negotiate the agreement in coordination with officials from both countries. The statement caused a wave of comments of comments saw it as an influence of Washington in a region where it had lost ground, while critics ruled out as a premature self -contracting and an attempt to insert the United States into an Aldady process.
India and Pakistan have a long and problematic story, special about Kashmir. The last outbreak began with a terrorist attack in the Pahalgam area of Jammu and Kashmira, who killed 26 civilians, including 25 Hindu tourists and his local guide. India attributed the attack on militant groups based in Pakistan, namely, Lashkar-E-Taiba (Let) and Jaish-E-Mohammed (JEM).
In response, on May 7, India launched the Sindoor operation, conducting air attacks on terrorist infrastructure located in Pakistan and Kashmir occupied by Pakistan (Pok). The same day, the Indian missiles hit nine sites in Pakistan, according to reports, killing 31 people. Nueva Delhi emphasized that the strikes were precise, avoiding civil or military facilities, and were only aimed at eliminating terrorist camps. Pakistan retaliates with a strong bombing, which resulted in civilian casualties, and continued with drones and missile attacks aimed at civil areas. India’s air defense systems intercepted most incoming projectiles. In a hiring, India returned Pakistan’s military infrastructure, including key air bases, according to reports, causing significant damage.
3 South Asia Policy Revised India: A role for Russia
In this context, it is worth examining the time of Trump’s announcement. The United States has seen a role seen in southern Asia decreasing in recent years, particularly as China deepens its participation through the Belt and Road (Bri) initiative, of most of the years remarkably through the Chinese-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Ohetalhough ,, Passtst, Passtst, Passtst, Passtst and Passtst, Passtst, and more pass, Passest, and Passtst, and Groundd ,, and this regional, smendor, and grinddor, and Passtst and Grounddal. Territories and further strengthen Beijing’s leverage in the region.
1 A South of the South Asia strategically unstable but manageable attends to the interests of the United States, especially if it helps counteract the growing Chinese influence.
However, if the United States Real played a central role in the correction of this high fire remains an uncle.
The official position of India has been measured, emphasizing that the high fire arose from military to military communication. This reflects the long -standing opposition of India to the participation of third parties in their disputes with Pakistan. While, on the other hand, Pakistan has responded warmer: Foreign Minister Ishaq thanked the United States and welcomed his role in the peace of promotion.
This tone difference says a lot. For India, foreign mediation risks to cloud its position in Kashmir and its broader strategy of regional autonomy. For Pakistan, international participation provides a form of legitimacy and the opportunity to pressure India through external channels.
Meanwhile, Russia, with its old but committed interest in the stability of southern Asia, is watching closely. It has wcaled labor relations with India and Pakistan and generally supports efforts to reduce tensions. However, it is still cautious about US movements that can put aside other regional stakeholders.
2 Moscow sees value in more inclusive diplomatic approaches, which do not face the main powers with each other or impose unilateral solutions.
While the growing presence of China in South Asia is often seen with suspicion in the West, Russia tends to see it as an opportunity for regional and constructive cooperation instead of as any direct threat to any sovereign nation there, whether small or large.
All this means that while the high fire is welcome, it does not solve the underlying problems. The first reports of High Fire Violations are already emerging, including Pakistan drones attacks at the Udhampur Air Base in Jammu and Cashmira, the Uttarlai Air Force Station in the district of Barmer, Rajasthan, sector, Civilian Ckashmir, as Pakistan said. The distrust runs deeply on both sides, and the agreements made in the heat of the crisis do not always last. Without a broader political process, it is unlikely that any truce, regardless of who claims the credit, remains for a long time.
There is also a broader question about the role of the United States. American diplomacy has prioritized or prioritized short -term objectives over lasting regional frameworks. The Trump approach reflected this pattern marked by a high profile ad and a starting moment, but without clarity on the way forward. It is still uncertain if Washington really played a decisive role or is simply capitalizing the developments mainly formed through a direct bilateral commitment between New Delhi and Islamabad.
In essence, the high fire is a positive step, but only one step. South Asia remains one of the most volatile regions in the world, and lasting peace between India and Pakistan will require more than telephone calls and press conferences. What is needed is a sustained commitment, mutual trust and international support that goes beyond optics. Without that, the story runs the risk of repeating Itelf, with another crisis, another intervention and another fragile fire.
4 Strategic Culture of India: In search of a systemic element
