India-Pakistan Escalation, Nuclear Deterrence and Armenia's Defense Outlook
Introduction
India and Pakistan, the two nuclear-armed powers of South Asia, engaged in a military escalation unprecedented in scale over the past half-century. The four-day conflict involved intense fighting, including artillery duels, drone warfare, and dogfights.
The conflict was triggered by the killing of 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22, which India blamed on Pakistan. On May 7, under Operation Sindoor , India launched missile strikes deep into Pakistani territory—targeting sites in Punjab and Pakistani-administered Kashmir—and claimed to have hit nine 'terrorist infrastructure' locations. This was followed by a dogfight involving approximately 125 fighter jets. Pakistan reported shooting down five Indian jets, including three Rafales, a MiG-29, and a Su-30.
In response, Pakistan launched a series of drone and missile strikes on May 7 and 8. India retaliated with its own drone attacks , targeting key Pakistani military assets, including a Chinese-made HQ-9 missile defense system. Cross-border shelling intensified and on May 9, both sides were engaged in sustained drone warfare and artillery duels. India also repositioned its Western Fleet, deploying an aircraft carrier. A U.S.-brokered ceasefire was reached on May 10, bringing the four-day confrontation to a halt.
The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence Theory
The advent of the atomic bomb by the U.S. under the Manhattan Project in July 1945 marked the beginning of the nuclear age and the Cold War arms race. The U.S. atomic monopoly was short-lived, undone by a Soviet espionage operation orchestrated by Lavrenti Beria, head of the USSR's NKVD.
The threat of a looming Armageddon not only accelerated weapons development but also spurred new strategic thinking. The term 'conventional' came to describe warfare below the nuclear threshold. In ' Arms and Influence ', Thomas Schelling popularized concepts such as coercion, compellence, deterrence and preemptive strikes . Coercion uses threats to influence an adversary's behavior; deterrence threatens punishment to prevent action; compellence pressures an adversary to act under threat of harm; preemptive strikes involve attacking first in anticipation of an imminent, confirmed assault.
The condition of mutual assured destruction (MAD) was central to nuclear confrontation , wherein neither the U.S. nor the USSR could defend its population, as both retained second-strike capability—even after a counterforce attack targeting nuclear arsenals. In this environment of mutual vulnerability, each side could retaliate with catastrophic force, including strikes on countervalue targets such as cities—a posture termed mutually assured retaliation . Some scholars argued that credible deterrence relied more on absolute capability than on relative force size. As long as both sides maintained second-strike capability , neither superiority nor first strikes could eliminate the threat of retaliation. This dynamic created crisis stability , where the fear of initiating a self-destructive war served as a stabilizing force.
However, the growing sophistication of counterforce —driven by advances in precision strikes, delivery systems, command and control, and surveillance —began to erode the credibility of assured retaliation. States increasingly considered disarming adversaries through a first strike. Earlier doctrines focused on maintaining second-strike capability—such as the flexible response approach associated with the punitive retaliation school. However, a shift occurred toward doctrines emphasizing first-strike capability. The U.S., for example, adopted a 'countervailing strategy' grounded in the military denial school, which remains relevant today despite concerns that first-use counterforce increases the risk of preemptive action. This evolution led to both the expansion of nuclear arsenals and sustained efforts to maintain escalation dominance at every level of conflict.
Nuclear Deterrence in Action: Regional Crisis and Broader Implications
India and Pakistan—acquiring nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998, respectively—are among the world's nuclear-armed states, along with the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, North Korea, and Israel. Both are considered minor nuclear powers , each possessing a similar number of warheads: approximately 172 for India and 170 for Pakistan. They have improved their command and control systems, diversified delivery platforms, and continue to enhance the quality and survivability of their arsenals. However, their nuclear doctrines differ significantly. India's doctrine is based on mutual assured retaliation, underpinned by a No First Use policy and a credible minimum deterrence. Pakistan maintains a more ambiguous strategy, reserving the option of first use, including tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) against conventional attacks.
This aligns with the theory of conventional inferiority , which holds that weaker conventional forces may rely on nuclear weapons to offset the imbalance. Facing conventional inferiority vis-à-vis India, Pakistan uses its nuclear arsenal to bridge the gap. In contrast, India—possessing sufficient conventional capabilities to deter both Pakistan and China—maintains its arsenal primarily for strategic deterrence.
Pakistan has long leveraged its nuclear arsenal through salami-slicing tactics, signaling that any large-scale Indian conventional response to its limited attacks could trigger nuclear escalation. This has added a new dimension to the stability-instability paradox. A core feature of nuclear deterrence is that strategic instability can create tactical stability: the fear of nuclear confrontation restrains conventional conflict. However, in the India-Pakistan context, strategic instability has instead fueled tactical instability. Pakistan uses the threat of nuclear escalation to enable limited conventional attacks, while India remains deterred from launching a full-scale conventional response.
As in past escalations, Pakistan's nuclear deterrence held, reaffirming the perceived benefits of nuclear weapons. What set this confrontation apart was India's deep conventional strikes into Pakistan's heartland —well beyond the Line of Control . These strikes not only sharply raised the risk of nuclear conflict but also signaled India's growing refusal to tolerate nuclear blackmail. Prime Minister Modi declared that India would 'retaliate on its own terms' and would not 'tolerate nuclear blackmailing' by Pakistan. This rhetoric reflects a shift in India's posture and a greater willingness to impose costs on future provocations.
Notably, the limited nature of India's response —confined to missile strikes and drone warfare—suggests that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent remained effective. Once again, conventional inferiority was offset by nuclear capability. This reaffirms that nuclear weapons remain among the most effective deterrents, especially for states facing conventionally superior adversaries. In the context of shifting geopolitical dynamics—including growing doubts about the credibility of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence—this may encourage latent nuclear powers such as Japan and certain European states, including Germany , to reconsider acquiring their own arsenals.
The confrontation once again underscored the complexity of nuclear decision-making, raising critical questions of where the threshold lies—what line, when crossed, would prompt a nuclear power to use its arsenal. This ambiguity highlights a central challenge in nuclear deterrence: the credibility of threats. These dilemmas are reflected in the ongoing war in Ukraine and carry serious implications for the stability of the global deterrence regime.
The Kremlin has consistently leveraged its nuclear arsenal to pursue an aggressive foreign policy—from redrawing post-Soviet borders to deterring Western support for Ukraine. Russia's nuclear signaling aimed to block the transfer of advanced weapons systems, including ATACMS missiles, F-16 fighter jets, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and M1 Abrams tanks, as well as Patriot air defense systems. Yet over time, the West has delivered—or is delivering — all of these weapons, steadily raising the threshold for nuclear use. Ukraine's recent Operation Spider Web , targeting Russian strategic bombers deep inside Russian territory, further tested Moscow's red lines. The West's incremental escalation in arming Ukraine, Kyiv's deepening attacks into Russian territory, and even India's strikes against Pakistan all illustrate the extraordinary difficulty of crossing the nuclear threshold. Despite aggressive rhetoric, the actual decision to use nuclear weapons remains constrained by immense strategic, political, and psychological barriers.
The Conflict's South Caucasus Dimension and Why It Matters for Armenia
Notably, the escalation carries not only important implications for nuclear deterrence but also strategic relevance for the South Caucasus and Armenia.
The conflict further consolidated the nexus between the so-called 'Three Brothers' alliance of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan. Some Indian media described the conflict as a '100-hour war' not just against Pakistan, but against the broader 'Three Brothers' network: Pakistan as the face, Turkey as the weapons provider, and Azerbaijan as the source of a coordinated disinformation campaign. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan were among the first to condemn Indian counterterrorism strikes. Hours after the attack in Pahalgam, during a press conference in Ankara, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked President Erdogan for his 'unwavering' support on Kashmir. Soon after, reports surfaced alleging Turkish military assistance to Pakistan —claims Ankara denied, explaining that a Turkish cargo plane had landed in Pakistan only for refueling. This was followed by the arrival of the Turkish naval warship TCG Büyükada (F-512) at Pakistan's Karachi port. Erdogan reiterated his solidarity shortly after India's 'Operation Sindoor,' referring to the events as the 'martyrdom of numerous civilians.' Notably, the 300–400 drones deployed by Pakistan during the conflict were of Turkish origin.
Along with providing diplomatic support, Azerbaijan — unlike Turkey's more visible military assistance —engaged actively in disinformation warfare . Baku condemned the Indian airstrikes and expressed solidarity with Pakistan. State-affiliated media outlets, such as Caliber, disseminated false information about the Kashmir conflict, accused India of 'water terrorism,' labeled its government as a 'fascist-leaning regime,' and amplified Pakistan's narrative. Azerbaijani sources sought to portray India's deterrence posture as ineffective by characterizing its weapon systems as underperforming.
The trilateral summit held in Lachin on May 28 further cemented the strategic partnership among the three countries. It signaled a shared determination to expand their regional influence—from Western to South and Central Asia—and elevate their partnership to a broader geopolitical level. Coordination across diplomatic, military, and informational fronts suggests that the parties have developed procedures for collective action and are gaining practical experience. This is illustrated by the substantial support Pakistan and Turkey provided to Azerbaijan during the 44-day war, where each country contributed according to its comparative strengths. This external balancing effort reflects a pragmatic response to a shifting geopolitical order, as the three states seek to enhance their collective security by pooling and aggregating their respective resources.
The growing alliance between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan presents an increasing challenge for Armenia, necessitating renewed balancing efforts. During the Lachin Summit, Turkish President Erdogan emphasized that the three countries together have a population of approximately 350 million and a combined economic output of $1.5 trillion—underscoring the scale and potential of the partnership. This regional development, along with broader shifts in the international system, suggests that Armenia must not only deepen its ties with Washington and Brussels but also explore new alliances in trilateral and quadrilateral formats.
In a recent piece , Professor Nerses Kopalyan outlined the potential of a quadrilateral alliance between Armenia, France, India and Poland within the framework of secularized multilateralism. Taking into account the already robust bilateral cooperation among these countries—as well as their respective interests in the South Caucasus—he argues that Armenia's main objective should be 'situating the matrix of bilateral relations into a minilateral configuration, with the congruent and mutual interests of all four actors aligning.'
The emerging India–Armenia–Greece–Cyprus front could serve as a counterbalance to the Pakistan–Azerbaijan–Turkey alliance . Armenia, Greece and Cyprus, beyond their historical and cultural ties, have been deepening cooperation in the defense sector. In December of last year, the three countries signed defense cooperation plans for 2025, following a visit by Greek Defense Minister Nikolaos Dendias to Armenia on March 4. Armenia's strategic partnership with India in the defense sector has grown steadily since 2022, with Armenia emerging as India's largest customer for finished weapon systems, with purchases totaling $2 billion . India's relations with Greece and Cyprus have also evolved, with New Delhi receiving an invitation to join the Eastern Mediterranean's '3+1' format—originally composed of Greece, Cyprus, and Israel, with the U.S. participating informally—intended to counterbalance Turkey's posture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Additionally, India signed military c ooperation agreements with Cyprus and Greece in December 2022 and April 2023, respectively. Notably, this 'quad' could potentially expand to include France, which maintains positive and growing relations with all four countries.
The Battlefield As a Testing Ground for Weapons Systems
Given that Armenia is one of the top purchasers of Indian armaments—and considering Turkey and Pakistan's close military ties with Azerbaijan—it is important to examine how the weapon systems used by both sides performed during the recent conflict. Since 2022, Armenia has procured a range of military equipment from India. The table below outlines key equipment Armenia has purchased or agreed to purchase from India in recent years, some of which were deployed by India during the escalation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
EVN Report
5 days ago
- EVN Report
India-Pakistan Escalation, Nuclear Deterrence and Armenia's Defense Outlook
This article first briefly outlines the evolution of nuclear deterrence theory, providing context for understanding India and Pakistan's nuclear doctrines and their historical implementation. It then examines how nuclear deterrence functioned during the recent conflict, how this confrontation differed from previous escalations, and what broader lessons can be drawn, particularly in light of certain trends in the Russian-Ukrainian war. The second section addresses the regional dimension, analyzing the deepening cooperation among Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan within the 'Three Brothers' alliance. The article then explores regional formats Armenia could engage with to counterbalance this emerging axis by examining specific options. Finally, it evaluates the performance of weapons systems used by both sides, focusing on Indian systems that Armenia has already acquired and other systems it may face in potential future conflicts. Introduction India and Pakistan, the two nuclear-armed powers of South Asia, engaged in a military escalation unprecedented in scale over the past half-century. The four-day conflict involved intense fighting, including artillery duels, drone warfare, and dogfights. The conflict was triggered by the killing of 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22, which India blamed on Pakistan. On May 7, under Operation Sindoor , India launched missile strikes deep into Pakistani territory—targeting sites in Punjab and Pakistani-administered Kashmir—and claimed to have hit nine 'terrorist infrastructure' locations. This was followed by a dogfight involving approximately 125 fighter jets. Pakistan reported shooting down five Indian jets, including three Rafales, a MiG-29, and a Su-30. In response, Pakistan launched a series of drone and missile strikes on May 7 and 8. India retaliated with its own drone attacks , targeting key Pakistani military assets, including a Chinese-made HQ-9 missile defense system. Cross-border shelling intensified and on May 9, both sides were engaged in sustained drone warfare and artillery duels. India also repositioned its Western Fleet, deploying an aircraft carrier. A U.S.-brokered ceasefire was reached on May 10, bringing the four-day confrontation to a halt. The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence Theory The advent of the atomic bomb by the U.S. under the Manhattan Project in July 1945 marked the beginning of the nuclear age and the Cold War arms race. The U.S. atomic monopoly was short-lived, undone by a Soviet espionage operation orchestrated by Lavrenti Beria, head of the USSR's NKVD. The threat of a looming Armageddon not only accelerated weapons development but also spurred new strategic thinking. The term 'conventional' came to describe warfare below the nuclear threshold. In ' Arms and Influence ', Thomas Schelling popularized concepts such as coercion, compellence, deterrence and preemptive strikes . Coercion uses threats to influence an adversary's behavior; deterrence threatens punishment to prevent action; compellence pressures an adversary to act under threat of harm; preemptive strikes involve attacking first in anticipation of an imminent, confirmed assault. The condition of mutual assured destruction (MAD) was central to nuclear confrontation , wherein neither the U.S. nor the USSR could defend its population, as both retained second-strike capability—even after a counterforce attack targeting nuclear arsenals. In this environment of mutual vulnerability, each side could retaliate with catastrophic force, including strikes on countervalue targets such as cities—a posture termed mutually assured retaliation . Some scholars argued that credible deterrence relied more on absolute capability than on relative force size. As long as both sides maintained second-strike capability , neither superiority nor first strikes could eliminate the threat of retaliation. This dynamic created crisis stability , where the fear of initiating a self-destructive war served as a stabilizing force. However, the growing sophistication of counterforce —driven by advances in precision strikes, delivery systems, command and control, and surveillance —began to erode the credibility of assured retaliation. States increasingly considered disarming adversaries through a first strike. Earlier doctrines focused on maintaining second-strike capability—such as the flexible response approach associated with the punitive retaliation school. However, a shift occurred toward doctrines emphasizing first-strike capability. The U.S., for example, adopted a 'countervailing strategy' grounded in the military denial school, which remains relevant today despite concerns that first-use counterforce increases the risk of preemptive action. This evolution led to both the expansion of nuclear arsenals and sustained efforts to maintain escalation dominance at every level of conflict. Nuclear Deterrence in Action: Regional Crisis and Broader Implications India and Pakistan—acquiring nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998, respectively—are among the world's nuclear-armed states, along with the U.S., Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, North Korea, and Israel. Both are considered minor nuclear powers , each possessing a similar number of warheads: approximately 172 for India and 170 for Pakistan. They have improved their command and control systems, diversified delivery platforms, and continue to enhance the quality and survivability of their arsenals. However, their nuclear doctrines differ significantly. India's doctrine is based on mutual assured retaliation, underpinned by a No First Use policy and a credible minimum deterrence. Pakistan maintains a more ambiguous strategy, reserving the option of first use, including tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) against conventional attacks. This aligns with the theory of conventional inferiority , which holds that weaker conventional forces may rely on nuclear weapons to offset the imbalance. Facing conventional inferiority vis-à-vis India, Pakistan uses its nuclear arsenal to bridge the gap. In contrast, India—possessing sufficient conventional capabilities to deter both Pakistan and China—maintains its arsenal primarily for strategic deterrence. Pakistan has long leveraged its nuclear arsenal through salami-slicing tactics, signaling that any large-scale Indian conventional response to its limited attacks could trigger nuclear escalation. This has added a new dimension to the stability-instability paradox. A core feature of nuclear deterrence is that strategic instability can create tactical stability: the fear of nuclear confrontation restrains conventional conflict. However, in the India-Pakistan context, strategic instability has instead fueled tactical instability. Pakistan uses the threat of nuclear escalation to enable limited conventional attacks, while India remains deterred from launching a full-scale conventional response. As in past escalations, Pakistan's nuclear deterrence held, reaffirming the perceived benefits of nuclear weapons. What set this confrontation apart was India's deep conventional strikes into Pakistan's heartland —well beyond the Line of Control . These strikes not only sharply raised the risk of nuclear conflict but also signaled India's growing refusal to tolerate nuclear blackmail. Prime Minister Modi declared that India would 'retaliate on its own terms' and would not 'tolerate nuclear blackmailing' by Pakistan. This rhetoric reflects a shift in India's posture and a greater willingness to impose costs on future provocations. Notably, the limited nature of India's response —confined to missile strikes and drone warfare—suggests that Pakistan's nuclear deterrent remained effective. Once again, conventional inferiority was offset by nuclear capability. This reaffirms that nuclear weapons remain among the most effective deterrents, especially for states facing conventionally superior adversaries. In the context of shifting geopolitical dynamics—including growing doubts about the credibility of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence—this may encourage latent nuclear powers such as Japan and certain European states, including Germany , to reconsider acquiring their own arsenals. The confrontation once again underscored the complexity of nuclear decision-making, raising critical questions of where the threshold lies—what line, when crossed, would prompt a nuclear power to use its arsenal. This ambiguity highlights a central challenge in nuclear deterrence: the credibility of threats. These dilemmas are reflected in the ongoing war in Ukraine and carry serious implications for the stability of the global deterrence regime. The Kremlin has consistently leveraged its nuclear arsenal to pursue an aggressive foreign policy—from redrawing post-Soviet borders to deterring Western support for Ukraine. Russia's nuclear signaling aimed to block the transfer of advanced weapons systems, including ATACMS missiles, F-16 fighter jets, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and M1 Abrams tanks, as well as Patriot air defense systems. Yet over time, the West has delivered—or is delivering — all of these weapons, steadily raising the threshold for nuclear use. Ukraine's recent Operation Spider Web , targeting Russian strategic bombers deep inside Russian territory, further tested Moscow's red lines. The West's incremental escalation in arming Ukraine, Kyiv's deepening attacks into Russian territory, and even India's strikes against Pakistan all illustrate the extraordinary difficulty of crossing the nuclear threshold. Despite aggressive rhetoric, the actual decision to use nuclear weapons remains constrained by immense strategic, political, and psychological barriers. The Conflict's South Caucasus Dimension and Why It Matters for Armenia Notably, the escalation carries not only important implications for nuclear deterrence but also strategic relevance for the South Caucasus and Armenia. The conflict further consolidated the nexus between the so-called 'Three Brothers' alliance of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan. Some Indian media described the conflict as a '100-hour war' not just against Pakistan, but against the broader 'Three Brothers' network: Pakistan as the face, Turkey as the weapons provider, and Azerbaijan as the source of a coordinated disinformation campaign. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan were among the first to condemn Indian counterterrorism strikes. Hours after the attack in Pahalgam, during a press conference in Ankara, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked President Erdogan for his 'unwavering' support on Kashmir. Soon after, reports surfaced alleging Turkish military assistance to Pakistan —claims Ankara denied, explaining that a Turkish cargo plane had landed in Pakistan only for refueling. This was followed by the arrival of the Turkish naval warship TCG Büyükada (F-512) at Pakistan's Karachi port. Erdogan reiterated his solidarity shortly after India's 'Operation Sindoor,' referring to the events as the 'martyrdom of numerous civilians.' Notably, the 300–400 drones deployed by Pakistan during the conflict were of Turkish origin. Along with providing diplomatic support, Azerbaijan — unlike Turkey's more visible military assistance —engaged actively in disinformation warfare . Baku condemned the Indian airstrikes and expressed solidarity with Pakistan. State-affiliated media outlets, such as Caliber, disseminated false information about the Kashmir conflict, accused India of 'water terrorism,' labeled its government as a 'fascist-leaning regime,' and amplified Pakistan's narrative. Azerbaijani sources sought to portray India's deterrence posture as ineffective by characterizing its weapon systems as underperforming. The trilateral summit held in Lachin on May 28 further cemented the strategic partnership among the three countries. It signaled a shared determination to expand their regional influence—from Western to South and Central Asia—and elevate their partnership to a broader geopolitical level. Coordination across diplomatic, military, and informational fronts suggests that the parties have developed procedures for collective action and are gaining practical experience. This is illustrated by the substantial support Pakistan and Turkey provided to Azerbaijan during the 44-day war, where each country contributed according to its comparative strengths. This external balancing effort reflects a pragmatic response to a shifting geopolitical order, as the three states seek to enhance their collective security by pooling and aggregating their respective resources. The growing alliance between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan presents an increasing challenge for Armenia, necessitating renewed balancing efforts. During the Lachin Summit, Turkish President Erdogan emphasized that the three countries together have a population of approximately 350 million and a combined economic output of $1.5 trillion—underscoring the scale and potential of the partnership. This regional development, along with broader shifts in the international system, suggests that Armenia must not only deepen its ties with Washington and Brussels but also explore new alliances in trilateral and quadrilateral formats. In a recent piece , Professor Nerses Kopalyan outlined the potential of a quadrilateral alliance between Armenia, France, India and Poland within the framework of secularized multilateralism. Taking into account the already robust bilateral cooperation among these countries—as well as their respective interests in the South Caucasus—he argues that Armenia's main objective should be 'situating the matrix of bilateral relations into a minilateral configuration, with the congruent and mutual interests of all four actors aligning.' The emerging India–Armenia–Greece–Cyprus front could serve as a counterbalance to the Pakistan–Azerbaijan–Turkey alliance . Armenia, Greece and Cyprus, beyond their historical and cultural ties, have been deepening cooperation in the defense sector. In December of last year, the three countries signed defense cooperation plans for 2025, following a visit by Greek Defense Minister Nikolaos Dendias to Armenia on March 4. Armenia's strategic partnership with India in the defense sector has grown steadily since 2022, with Armenia emerging as India's largest customer for finished weapon systems, with purchases totaling $2 billion . India's relations with Greece and Cyprus have also evolved, with New Delhi receiving an invitation to join the Eastern Mediterranean's '3+1' format—originally composed of Greece, Cyprus, and Israel, with the U.S. participating informally—intended to counterbalance Turkey's posture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Additionally, India signed military c ooperation agreements with Cyprus and Greece in December 2022 and April 2023, respectively. Notably, this 'quad' could potentially expand to include France, which maintains positive and growing relations with all four countries. The Battlefield As a Testing Ground for Weapons Systems Given that Armenia is one of the top purchasers of Indian armaments—and considering Turkey and Pakistan's close military ties with Azerbaijan—it is important to examine how the weapon systems used by both sides performed during the recent conflict. Since 2022, Armenia has procured a range of military equipment from India. The table below outlines key equipment Armenia has purchased or agreed to purchase from India in recent years, some of which were deployed by India during the escalation.
EVN Report
7 days ago
- EVN Report
Kyiv Doesn't Sleep: A Dispatch From a City at War
I woke early to find my phone flooded with messages from friends and family. They had read the headlines and were checking in to see if I was safe. That night Kyiv had suffered one of its heaviest drone and missile attacks in recent memory. Several residential buildings were hit and more than 25 people were buried under the rubble of a collapsed apartment block close to the city's center. I was staying nearby. Just before midnight a local friend messaged: 'Something big is starting.' Telegram channels were already lighting up with reports—missiles launched from Russian territory, radar tracking aircraft and drones. Minutes later my phone's air raid alert blared. Visitors are advised to download a special app for such warnings. The hotel I was staying in is located within a small district that's under heightened security. Nearby are several government agencies, embassies, and centuries-old churches. Although there have been occasional strikes here during the war, it's very rare. After the alert I packed a bag with documents and essential clothes and left it by the door, just as I had during the 2020 war in Yerevan, when warplanes flew overhead and online radar maps showed drones nearby. If the situation turned critical, I would have grabbed the bag and headed for the underground parking lot converted into a bomb shelter. I had timed the route in advance, both in Kyiv and back then in Yerevan. But I never had to move. For hours I listened as drones hummed across the sky. Occasionally I heard the crack of anti-aircraft fire in the distance, then silence. Lying awake I kept thinking of a woman I interviewed in Yerevan during the 2020 Karabakh war. We were sitting outside in a small garden, because of covid restrictions. A gust of wind rustled the trees and ripe acorns rained down. 'That's how the bombs fell on us,' she said. Nothing more was needed to understand what it feels like to live inside a war. A City That Carries On By morning it was as if nothing had happened. My early meeting wasn't canceled, only slightly delayed. I sat at an outdoor cafe table as people rushed by. There was no visible trace of stress on their faces. Some women had done full makeup, even styled their hair—no small thing after a night of bombardment. The scent of blooming linden trees masked any lingering smell of smoke if there was any left in the air. It was my first time in Kyiv since the full-scale invasion. I had visited before, passing through, meeting friends, sometimes even making new ones. Kyiv remains one of the most welcoming cities I know. Its architecture, shaped by different eras, its streets climbing over hills, the wide Dnipro River, all make the city unforgettable. But the war has left a clear mark. You feel it the moment you enter. Traffic has thinned—possibly by two-thirds—and only one in three apartment windows is lit in the evening. Roads and facades are fraying, repair budgets long since diverted to defense. Luxury boutiques once bustling now sit empty. Women greatly outnumber men on the streets. And every ten minutes or so you pass a young man in uniform, missing a limb. The scale of loss becomes clearest in places of mourning. On Maidan, where Ukraine's most pivotal political events have unfolded, there is now a sea of photos, candles and flags. A few kilometers away the outer wall of a cathedral is lined with thousands of portraits—men and women, names and dates of birth and death. One man smiles broadly, handing a sunflower from a place no one returns. Just these two Yerablurs of Kyiv are enough to grasp the depth of the tragedy behind the casualty dry figures, all too familiar to our own conflict-worn South Caucasus region. Echoes of the Ukraine War In Kyiv many keep their windows taped to prevent glass from shattering in an explosion. The frontlines are hundreds of kilometers east, but missiles and drones still target the capital. Experts say the goal is to sustain psychological pressure on civilians and officials alike. The intensity of strikes often spikes around major political events. The attack during my visit coincided with the G20 summit in Canada, where Ukraine's future was part of the agenda. Efforts led by Trump-aligned factions in the U.S. to halt the war have yielded little so far. Fighting has not only continued, it has enabled Russian forces to make gradual territorial gains. In parallel, some U.S. officials have raised the possibility of ending military support to Ukraine. If that happens, Kyiv may not collapse immediately, but over time its capacity to resist will likely erode. Any deal over Ukraine will send shockwaves through neighboring regions. If Western leaders accept Russian territorial gains, it could set a precedent, raising new questions for Georgia's regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, whose independence remains internationally unrecognized since the 2008 war. It could also weaken arguments made by countries like Armenia, where Azerbaijani troops are stationed inside its territory, and where rhetoric about 'Western Azerbaijan' continues from Baku. More immediately, a shift in Western posture could redraw the South Caucasus' place on the geopolitical map. If NATO turns away from Ukraine, Georgia's membership hopes—historically tied to Kyiv's—could vanish. Delays in EU enlargement could dim Armenia's ambitions to deepen cooperation. While Moldova begins accession talks in the coming days, Ukraine, still at war, remains in limbo. Fighting to Survive And yet there is no talk of surrender in Kyiv. News of battlefield setbacks is treated as temporary—challenges to be reversed. For many, European integration is another front in a broader war for survival. Civil society groups chase down officials with reform checklists. 'If they refuse,' one activist told me, 'they could be killed – not metaphorically. Literally. Because failing to act would be seen as a betrayal of the country's future.' She wasn't exaggerating. As I was leaving Kyiv, I couldn't shake the sense that in the South Caucasus we've been through versions of this before, the 2008 war in Georgia, the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh. They weren't the first in the region, and they won't be the last. But none matched the scale or reach of what is now unfolding in Ukraine, for three years and counting. Sitting at the train station, watching high-rises with shattered windows, I thought of how little the city seems to sleep, and how much weight it now carries. Kyiv may be fighting for its own future. But in doing so, it might also be shaping ours.
Libyan Express
26-06-2025
- Libyan Express
Trump brands New York mayoral candidate Mamdani a ‘radical communist'
BY Libyan Express Jun 26, 2025 - 02:50 Updated: Jun 26, 2025 - 07:00 Donald Trump, Zohran Mamdani (Credit: Getty Images) US President Donald Trump has sharply criticised Zahran Mamdani, a Muslim state legislator who recently won the Democratic primary for Mayor of New York City, labelling him a 'radical communist' in a post on his social media platform. In a message on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump wrote: 'The Democrats have gone too far. Zahran Mamdani, a completely obsessed communist, has won the Democratic Party primary and is now on his way to becoming Mayor of New York.' He added: 'We've seen far-left radicals before, but this has become a bit ridiculous. He looks awful, sounds irritating, and he's not smart. All the fools support him.' Mamdani, who currently serves in the New York State Assembly, secured the Democratic nomination according to preliminary results published on Wednesday. His progressive platform, focusing on housing reform, social justice, and environmental issues, has drawn strong support from younger and left-leaning voters in the city. Trump's remarks have attracted widespread attention, with critics condemning his personal attacks, while some of his supporters echoed concerns about the Democratic Party's direction. Born to Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani and of Indian heritage, Zahran Mamdani is part of a new wave of progressive leaders reshaping urban politics in the US. If elected, he would be New York's first Muslim mayor. The mayoral race in New York is expected to draw significant national interest as candidates debate critical issues such as policing, housing, and climate policy. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Libyan Express. How to submit an Op-Ed: Libyan Express accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. Submissions may be sent to oped@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line.
