Follow us on social

Pakistan India ceasefire

Can Trump-brokered Pakistan-India ceasefire hold?

Both nations have every reason to step back from the brink

Reporting | QiOSK

Saturday morning (U.S. time), President Trump and Rubio claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following a week of dangerous cross border attacks.

It was not clear by midday whether the ceasefire, if fully confirmed, would hold, though Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the first acknowledgement of the deal by either side today. “Pakistan appreciates the United States for facilitating this outcome, which we have accepted in the interest of regional peace and stability,” Sharif said.

As international encouragement for the ceasefire came in from Europe, cross border skirmishes were already being reported by the New York Times, indicating the tenuous nature of the situation.

On April 22, terrorists attacked a group of Indian tourists near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing 26 civilians. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups with a history of cross-border attacks. Pakistan denied responsibility, pointing instead to local Kashmiri militants acting on their own. It was the deadliest civilian attack in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Fears of retaliation surged as India suspended the Indus Water Treaty and both countries canceled each other’s visas.

On May 7, India struck what it said were terrorist camps in Pakistan, launching missiles into Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing 31 people according to Pakistani authorities. Drone strikes followed in both countries’ Punjab provinces. Pakistan claimed to have downed up to five Indian jets; U.S. officials claimed it was two. This was also viewed as a showcase of Chinese aircraft against French and Russian models.

By Friday night, the conflict escalated dramatically. Drone strikes by both sides were taking place continuously and heavy artillery fire by both sides on the Line of Control in Kashmir was forcing major evacuations of civilians. India targeted military bases inside Pakistan’s Punjab, including Nur Khan airbase near Rawalpindi, close to the military’s headquarters, after alleged Pakistani missile strikes in the Indian state of Punjab. In response, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif convened Pakistan’s National Command Authority, signaling deliberations over its strategic–and possibly nuclear options.

What followed is murky, but U.S. intervention appeared swift. Vice President J.D. Vance had initially downplayed the crisis as “none of our business,” but Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistan’s army chief, urging de-escalation. The Saturday ceasefire news out of Washington is welcome but aside from Rubio and Trump taking credit, both India and Pakistan had plenty of reasons to avoid all out war— for India especially it would have endangered its successful economic growth story. Their close regional partners also pushed for peace. Whether it was true mediation or simply backchannel encouragement remains unclear-but for now, the region has stepped back from the brink, saving many lives.


Top photo credit: People wave Pakistani flags in celebration after the ceasefire announcement between India and Pakistan, in Islamabad, Pakistan, May 10, 2025. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.