**
New Delhi – In a candid assessment reaffirming India’s strategic advantage, former CIA counter-terrorism officer John Kiriakou has delivered a stark verdict on the military balance in South Asia. The American intelligence veteran stated unequivocally that “Pakistan will lose any conventional war with India,” a comment now reverberating through global strategic circles.
Kiriakou’s analysis, coming from a figure with deep insights into global conflict zones, is not just an opinion but a reflection of a ground reality that has solidified over decades. While the statement may seem clear to military planners in New Delhi, its articulation by an impartial foreign expert lends it significant weight, cutting through the political rhetoric that often clouds the issue.
The Widening Gulf: Why India Holds the Upper Hand
John Kiriakou’s argument rests on the growing chasm between the two nations across multiple domains. This assessment is underpinned by critical factors ranging from economic might to modern military hardware.
Economic Disparity: Fueling the War Machine
First and foremost is the overwhelming economic disparity. India, now the world’s fifth-largest economy and on a trajectory to become the third, possesses the financial muscle to sustain a prolonged, high-intensity conflict. Modern warfare is an expensive enterprise, reliant on a robust industrial base and consistent supply chains. India’s burgeoning defence-industrial complex, powered by the ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ (Self-Reliant India) initiative, is increasingly capable of meeting these demands.
In stark contrast, Pakistan’s economy is navigating severe turbulence, heavily dependent on international bailouts from the IMF and other partners. A full-scale conventional war would likely cripple its already fragile economic structure within weeks.
Conventional Military Superiority: A Technological Edge
The Indian Armed Forces hold a significant quantitative and, more importantly, a qualitative edge. The induction of state-of-the-art platforms has created a technological gap that Pakistan finds nearly impossible to bridge. Key assets include:
* Rafale Fighter Jets: Advanced multi-role combat aircraft.
* S-400 Air Defence Systems: A formidable shield against aerial threats.
* INS Vikrant: A domestically built aircraft carrier, projecting naval power.
India’s multi-billion-dollar defence budget outstrips Pakistan’s several times over, allowing for consistent modernisation, superior training, and a greater stockpile of advanced munitions.
Pakistan’s Strategy: Asymmetric Warfare and the Nuclear Shield
Kiriakou’s statement implicitly highlights why Pakistan has historically leaned on asymmetric and sub-conventional warfare. Understanding its inability to win a straightforward conventional fight, Pakistan has often relied on cross-border terrorism and proxy groups as state policy.
This strategy has been propped up by its nuclear arsenal, which has been used as a shield for its sub-conventional activities in a tactic known as “nuclear blackmail.” The assumption was that India would be deterred from a massive conventional retaliation for a terror attack, fearing it could escalate to a nuclear exchange.
However, Kiriakou’s specific focus on a “conventional war“ is crucial. It suggests that in any scenario below the nuclear threshold, the outcome is pre-determined. This aligns with India’s own strategic shift, evidenced by its response to the Uri and Pulwama attacks with surgical strikes and the Balakot airstrike. India demonstrated its willingness to call Pakistan’s bluff and carry out punitive conventional strikes without triggering a wider conflict.
Ultimately, the former CIA officer’s words serve as a reality check on the shifting power dynamics in the subcontinent. This assessment reinforces confidence in India’s military preparedness, which acts as the ultimate deterrent against conventional aggression.
**
