According to security expert Dr. Walter Ladwig, a conflict between India and Pakistan is not in the best interest of the United States because it diverts India's attention from China. Ladwig, a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at King's College London, has observed Washington's consistent efforts to cultivate India as a crucial partner in the Indo-Pacific region, partly to counterbalance China.
Ladwig's analysis comes in the wake of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, triggered by the Pahalgam terror attack and India's retaliatory Operation Sindoor. He characterized this conflict as a "watershed event" in global security dynamics, highlighting Operation Sindoor as a demonstration of India's assertive military doctrine against cross-border terrorism. He noted that India's shift from a defensive posture to an assertive counter-terrorism strategy was evident in its strikes against key airbases in Pakistan.
Ladwig also commented on India's operational effectiveness and public messaging during the conflict, stating that India was more successful in striking a wider range of targets and executing more successful missions than Pakistan. He believes that Operation Sindoor has set a new baseline for how India will respond to future terrorist attacks linked to Pakistan or its neighbors, signaling that India will not simply turn the other cheek or rely solely on diplomatic measures.
The security expert highlighted the US favoring India, while China remains Pakistan's key military ally, complicating prospects for external mediation. He expressed surprise that Pakistan still looks to Washington as an impartial interlocutor, given the clear preference the United States has shown for India over the last two decades. Russia and France are also seen as firmly aligned with India.
Ladwig noted that India's economic growth, which is currently just under 7% annually, needs to accelerate to meet its development targets. A protracted conflict or stalemate with Pakistan would jeopardize this growth, making it contrary to America's interests.
Regarding ceasefire efforts, Ladwig suggested that the de-escalation was primarily driven by the will of both India and Pakistan, rather than external mediation. While the US has claimed to have brokered peace, India has maintained that no mediation occurred. Ladwig believes that the US, among other countries, was in conversation with both sides, opening lines of communication and encouraging dialogue between their Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs).
Despite claims of mediation by the U.S. President, Ladwig suggests taking these statements with a grain of salt. He pointed out that the dynamics of the crisis de-escalation were largely due to the desires of the two parties involved, who were willing to move towards a resolution when an off-ramp was presented.
Ladwig's analysis underscores the importance of India's role as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific region and the potential risks that the India-Pakistan conflict poses to India's growth and stability. He emphasized that it is not in the American interest for the conflict to distract India from larger issues in Asia.
