Connect with us

World

‘Don’t see a major war with India, but have to be ready’: Pakistan ex-NSA

Published

on

‘Don’t see a major war with India, but have to be ready’: Pakistan ex-NSA

Islamabad, Pakistan – Eleven days after gunmen shot 26 people dead in the scenic valley of Baisaran in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pahalgam, India and Pakistan stand on the brink of a military standoff.

The nuclear-armed neighbours have each announced a series of tit-for-tat steps against the other since the attack on April 22, which India has implicitly blamed Pakistan for, even as Islamabad has denied any role in the killings.

India has suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty that enforces a water-sharing mechanism Pakistan depends on. Pakistan has threatened to walk away from the 1972 Simla Agreement that committed both nations to recognising a previous ceasefire line as a Line of Control (LoC) – a de-facto border – between them in Kashmir, a disputed region that they each partly control but that they both claim in its entirety. Both nations have also expelled each other’s citizens and scaled back their diplomatic missions.

Despite a ceasefire agreement being in place since 2021, the current escalation is the most serious since 2019, when India launched air strikes on Pakistani soil following an attack on Indian soldiers in Pulwama, in Indian-administered Kashmir, that killed 40 troops. In recent days, they have traded fire across the LoC.

And the region is now on edge, amid growing expectations that India might launch a military operation against Pakistan this time too.

Advertisement

Yet, both countries have also engaged their diplomatic partners. On Wednesday, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, urging both sides to find a path to de-escalation. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called his Indian counterpart, Rajnath Singh, on Thursday to condemn the attack and offered “strong support” to India.

Sharif met envoys from China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, three of Pakistan’s closest allies, to seek their support, and urged the ambassadors of the two Gulf nations to “impress upon India to de-escalate and defuse tensions”.

To understand how Pakistani strategists who have worked on ties with India view what might happen next, Al Jazeera spoke with Moeed Yusuf, who served as Pakistan’s national security adviser (NSA) between May 2021 and April 2022 under former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Prior to his role as NSA, Yusuf also worked as a special adviser to Khan on matters related to national security starting in December 2019, four months after the Indian government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, revoked the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, right, held a meeting with the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, Nawaf bin Saeed Al-Maliky, left, in Islamabad on May 2, 2025 [Handout/Prime Minister’s Office]

Based in Lahore, Yusuf is currently the vice chancellor of a private university and has authored and edited several books on South Asia and regional security. His most recent book, Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia, was published in 2018.

Advertisement

Al Jazeera: How do you assess moves made by both sides so far in the crisis?

Moeed Yusuf: India and Pakistan have for long struggled in terms of crisis management. They don’t have a bilateral crisis management mechanism, which is the fundamental concern.

The number one crisis management tool used by both sides has been the reliance on third parties, with the idea being that they would try and restrain them both and help de-escalate the crisis.

This time, I feel the problem India has run into is that they followed the old playbook, but the leader of the most important third party, the United States, didn’t show up to support India.

It appears that they have so far taken a neutral and a hands-off position, as indicated by President Donald Trump few days ago. (Trump said that he knew the leaders of both India and Pakistan, and believed that they could resolve the crisis on their own.)

Advertisement

Pakistan’s response is directly linked to the Indian response, and that is historically how it has been, with both countries going tit-for-tat with each other. This time too, a number of punitive steps have been announced.

The problem is that these are easy to set into motion but very difficult to reverse, even when things get better, and they may wish to do so.

Unfortunately, in every crisis between them, the retaliatory steps are becoming more and more substantive, as in this case, India has decided to hold Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, which is illegal as the treaty provides no such provision.

Al Jazeera: Do you believe a strike is imminent and if both sides are indicating preparedness for a showdown?

Yusuf: In such moments, it is impossible to say. Action from India remains plausible and possible, but the window where imminence was a real concern has passed.

Advertisement

What usually happens in crises is that countries pick up troop or logistics movements, or their allies inform them, or they rely on ground intelligence to determine what might happen. Sometimes, these can be misread and can lead the offensive side to see an opportunity to act where none exists or the defensive side to believe an attack may be coming when it isn’t the case.

Pakistan naturally has to show commitment to prepare for any eventuality. You don’t know what will come next, so you have to be ready.

Having said that, I don’t think we are going to see a major war, but in these circumstances, you can never predict, and one little misunderstanding or miscalculation can lead to something major.

Al Jazeera: How do you see the role of third parties such as the US, China and Gulf States in this crisis, and how would you compare it with previous instances?

Yusuf: My last book, Brokering Peace (2018) was on the third-party management in Pakistan-India context, and this is such a vital element for both as they have internalised and built it into their calculus that a third-party country will inevitably come in.

Advertisement

The idea is that a third-party mediator will step in, and the two nations will agree to stop because that is what they really want, instead of escalating further.

And the leader of the pack of third-party countries is the United States since the Kargil war of 1999. (Pakistani forces crossed the LoC to try to take control of strategic heights in Ladakh’s Kargil, but India eventually managed to take back the territory. Then-US President Bill Clinton is credited with helping end that conflict.)

Everybody else, including China, ultimately backs the US position, which prioritises immediate de-escalation above all else during the crisis.

This changed somewhat in the 2016 surgical strikes and 2019 Pulwama crisis when the US leaned heavily on India’s side, perhaps unwittingly even emboldening them to act in 2019.

(In 2016, Indian troops launched a cross-border “surgical strike” that New Delhi said targeted armed fighters planning to attack India, after gunmen killed 19 Indian soldiers in an attack on an army base in Uri, Indian-administered Kashmir. Three years later, Indian fighter jets bombed what New Delhi said were bases of “terrorists” in Balakot, in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, after the attack on the Indian military convoy in which 40 soldiers were killed. India and Pakistan then engaged in an aerial dogfight, and an Indian pilot was captured and subsequently returned.)

Advertisement

However, this time, you have a president in the White House who turned around and told both Pakistan and India to figure it out themselves.

This, I think, has hurt India more than Pakistan, because for Pakistan, they had discounted the possibility of significant US support in recent years, thinking they have gotten too close to India due to their strategic relationship.

But India would have been hoping for the Americans to put their foot down and pressure Pakistan, which did not exactly materialise. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s phone call again is playing down the middle, where they are telling both the countries to get out of war.

So, what they have done has, oddly enough, still played a role in holding India back so far, since India didn’t (so far) feel as emboldened to take action as they may have during Pulwama in 2019.

Gulf countries have played a more active role than before. China, too, has made a statement of restraint.

Advertisement
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been in power since 2014, during which ties between India and Pakistan have remained tense [Abdul Saboor/AP Photo]

Al Jazeera: How has Pakistan’s relationship with India evolved in recent years?

Yusuf: There has been a sea change in the relationship between the two countries. When I was in office, despite serious problems and India’s unilateral moves in Kashmir in 2019, we saw a ceasefire agreement on the Line of Control as well as back-channel talks.

We have tried to move ahead and reduce India’s incentive to destabilise Pakistan, but I think India has lost that opportunity due to its own intransigence, hubris and an ideological bent that continues to force them to demean and threaten Pakistan.

That has led to a change in Pakistan as well, where the leadership is now convinced that the policy of restraint did not deliver, and India has misused and abused Pakistan’s offers for dialogue.

The view now is that if India doesn’t want to talk, Pakistan shouldn’t be pleading either. If India does reach out, we will likely respond, but there isn’t any desperation in Pakistan at all.

This is not a good place to be for either country. I have long believed and argued that ultimately for Pakistan to get to where we want to go economically, and for India to get to where it says it wants to go regionally, it cannot happen unless both improve their relationship. For now, though, with the current Indian attitude, unfortunately, I see little hope.

Advertisement

Al Jazeera: Do you anticipate any direct India-Pakistan talks at any level during or after this crisis?

Yes – I don’t know when it will be, or who will it be through or with, but I think one of the key lessons Indians could probably walk away with once all this is over is that attempting to isolate Pakistan isn’t working.

Indus Water Treaty in abeyance? Simla Agreement’s potential suspension? These are major decisions, and the two countries will need to talk to sort these out, and I think at some point in future they will engage.

But I also don’t think that Pakistan will make a move towards rapprochement, as we have offered opportunities for dialogues so many times recently to no avail. As I said, the mood in Pakistan has also firmed up on this question.

Ultimately, the Indians need to basically decide if they want to talk or not. If they come forth, I think Pakistan will still respond positively to it.

Advertisement

*This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

World

Ukraine drops NATO goal as Trump envoy sees progress in peace talks

Published

on

Ukraine drops NATO goal as Trump envoy sees progress in peace talks
  • Trump envoy says a lot of progress made in Berlin talks
  • Negotiations to continue on Monday morning
  • Zelenskiy seeks guarantees against future Russian attacks
  • German defence minister warns on security guarantees

BERLIN/KYIV, Dec 14 (Reuters) – President Volodymyr Zelenskiy offered to drop Ukraine’s aspirations to join the NATO military alliance as he held five hours of talks with U.S. envoys in Berlin on Sunday to end the war with Russia, with negotiations set to continue on Monday.

Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said “a lot of progress was made” as he and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner met Zelenskiy in the latest push to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War Two, though full details were not divulged.

Sign up here.

Zelenskiy’s adviser Dmytro Lytvyn said the president would comment on the talks on Monday once they were completed. Officials, Lytvyn said, were considering the draft documents.

“They went on for more than five hours and ended for today with an agreement to resume tomorrow morning,” Lytvyn told reporters in a WhatsApp chat.

Ahead of the talks, Zelenskiy offered to drop Ukraine’s goal to join NATO in exchange for Western security guarantees.

The move marks a major shift for Ukraine, which has fought to join NATO as a safeguard against Russian attacks and has such an aspiration included in its constitution. It also meets one of Russia’s war aims, although Kyiv has so far held firm against ceding territory to Moscow.

Advertisement

“Representatives held in-depth discussions regarding the 20-point plan for peace, economic agendas, and more. A lot of progress was made, and they will meet again tomorrow morning,” Witkoff said in a post on X.

The talks were hosted by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who a source said had made brief remarks before leaving the two sides to negotiate. Other European leaders are also due in Germany for talks on Monday.

“From the very beginning, Ukraine’s desire was to join NATO, these are real security guarantees. Some partners from the U.S. and Europe did not support this direction,” Zelenskiy said in answer to questions from reporters in a WhatsApp chat.

“Thus, today, bilateral security guarantees between Ukraine and the U.S., Article 5-like guarantees for us from the U.S., and security guarantees from European colleagues, as well as other countries — Canada, Japan — are an opportunity to prevent another Russian invasion,” Zelenskiy said.

“And it is already a compromise on our part,” he said, adding the security guarantees should be legally binding.

Advertisement

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly demanded Ukraine officially renounce its NATO ambitions and withdraw troops from the about 10% of Donbas which Kyiv still controls. Moscow has also said Ukraine must be a neutral country and no NATO troops can be stationed in Ukraine.

Russian sources said earlier this year that Putin wants a “written” pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the U.S.-led NATO alliance eastwards – shorthand for formally ruling out membership to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other former Soviet republics.
Sending Witkoff, who has led negotiations with Ukraine and Russia on a U.S. peace proposal, appeared to be a signal that Washington saw a chance of progress nearly four years after Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Under pressure from Trump to sign a peace deal that initially backed Moscow’s demands, Zelenskiy accused Russia of dragging out the war through deadly bombings of cities and Ukraine’s power and water supplies.

A ceasefire along the current front lines would be a fair option, he added.

‘CRITICAL MOMENT’

Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said it was a “good sign” Trump had sent his envoys while fielding questions in an interview with the ZDF broadcaster on the suitability of Witkoff and Kushner, two businessmen, as negotiators.

“It’s certainly anything but an ideal setup for such negotiations. That much is clear. But as they say, you can only dance with the people on the dance floor,” Pistorius said.

Advertisement

On the issue of Ukraine’s offer to give up its NATO aspirations in exchange for security guarantees, Pistorius said Ukraine had bitter prior experience of relying on security assurances. Kyiv had in 1994 agreed to give up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in exchange for territorial guarantees from the U.S., Russia and Britain.

“Therefore, it remains to be seen to what extent this statement Zelenskiy has now made will actually hold true, and what preconditions must be met,” Pistorius said.

“This concerns territorial issues, commitments from Russia and others,” he said, adding mere security guarantees, especially without significant U.S. involvement, “wouldn’t be worth much.”

Britain, France and Germany have been working to refine the U.S. proposals, which in a draft disclosed last month called for Kyiv to cede more territory, abandon its NATO ambitions and accept limits on its armed forces.

European allies have described this as a “critical moment” that could shape Ukraine’s future, and sought to shore up Kyiv’s finances by leveraging frozen Russian central bank assets to fund Kyiv’s military and civilian budget.

Reporting by Friederike Heine, Matthias Williams, Olena Harmash, Andreas Rinke, Ron Popeski, David Ljunggren; writing by Matthias Williams; editing by Alexander Smith and Chris Reese

Advertisement

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Continue Reading

World

US veteran rescues ‘most wanted woman in Western Hemisphere’ from Venezuela in secret operation

Published

on

US veteran rescues ‘most wanted woman in Western Hemisphere’ from Venezuela in secret operation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The rescue operation to extract Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado and transport her to Norway in time to accept her Nobel Peace Prize involved a complex series of complications and various components in land, sea and air.   

The mission, dubbed Operation Golden Dynamite, was spearheaded by Bryan Stern, a U.S. special forces veteran and founder of the Tampa-based Grey Bull Rescue Foundation, which specializes in high-risk rescue missions and evacuations, notably from conflict and disaster zones.

Getting her out of Venezuela, where she is considered a fugitive by President Nicolás Maduro, involved disguises, deception, navigating choppy seas and arranging flight options.

“She’s perceived by the Maduro regime the way we perceived Osama bin Laden, like that,” Stern told Fox News. “That level of manhunt if you will.”

Advertisement

US COVERT TEAM LEADER DESCRIBES ‘DANGEROUS’ MISSION TO RESCUE VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado gestures at a protest ahead of the Friday inauguration of President Nicolás Maduro for his third term, in Caracas, Venezuela, January 9, 2025.  (Maxwell Briceno/Reuters)

Machado has been hiding out in Venezuela since Maduro won a highly disputed election last year and had not been seen in public in months. 

Stern emphasized that the U.S. government was not involved in the operation. 

His team had been building up a presence in the Caribbean, Venezuela and the neighboring island of Aruba in preparation for operations in the South American region.

Advertisement

The biggest challenge, Stern said, was getting Machado out of the country despite her being a well-known figure there. In order to move her from her house to a “beach landing site,” his team reportedly did “all kinds of things designed to create a little bit of confusion.”

“Anything that we could have possibly think of that we thought could hide her face … was employed.” Stern said. “Anything we could think of, her digital signature, her physical signature. On top of that, we did some deception operations on the ground. We made some noise in some places designed to get people to think something was happening that wasn’t.”

VENEZUELAN DISSIDENT MACHADO CREDITS TRUMP FOR ADVANCING FREEDOM MOVEMENT, DEDICATES NOBEL TO HIM

Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro brandishes a sword said to have belonged to independence hero Simon Bolivar during a civic-military event at the military academy in Caracas, Venezuela, Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2025.  (Ariana Cubillos/AP Photo)

The maritime operation started off rough, Stern recounted. Of the two boats deployed for the mission, the vessel that physically extracted Machado reportedly lost its GPS in the turbulent seas and suffered a mechanical hiccup that delayed the operation. The team was forced to continue into the “dead of night” in “pitch-black darkness,” navigating seas so violent that one of Stern’s seasoned operators reportedly vomited for nine hours straight.

Advertisement

Reaching the rendezvous point added another layer of difficulty. Stern’s boat and Machado’s vessel had to find each other in pitch-black seas while maintaining radio silence to avoid detection, ultimately locating one another by flashlight.

Stern said he had to remain cautious, fearing that the approaching boat could have been a trap set by Venezuelan forces. To confirm it was safe to proceed, his larger vessel circled Machado’s boat and shined lights on the crew. 

After Stern physically pulled Machado onto his boat, he then alerted the rest of the team that Machado was secured: “Jackpot, jackpot, jackpot.”

“Now we are on the run with Maria Corina Machado, the most wanted woman in the Western Hemisphere, on my boat,” he said.

“I have the most wanted person in the Western hemisphere that I’m trying to move around,” Stern said. “Personally, she’s a hero of mine. She’s a hero of mine. I’ve been tracking her for years.”

Advertisement

VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER SAYS COUNTRY AT ‘THRESHOLD OF FREEDOM’ AS NEW MANIFESTO ENVISIONS REGIME CHANGE

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado waves at the Grand Hotel in Oslo, Norway, early Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025. (Lise Åserud/NTB Scanpix via AP)

Once in international waters, the new concern was avoiding any appearance that they had kidnapped a Venezuelan, which would have given the government any justification to attack.

“They lie. They could have killed us for any reason,” Stern said. “We’re in the middle of the d— ocean and there’s no one around to see the truth … we are scared, we are nervous, we’re on the run and we floor it getting to the rendezvous.”

Stern ordered his boat captain to drive full throttle and not stop for anything, fearing pursuit by the Venezuelan regime.

Advertisement

“My boat guy, I told him I don’t care, I don’t care who comes,” Stern said. “You don’t stop. You do not stop. I don’t care, I don’t care who. You do not stop at all. Let them chase us if they have to. We have got to get to land.”

At some point during the escape, two F-18 fighter jets reportedly flew overhead. Stern described the moment as a potential complication, since they could not determine whether the jets were hostile or friendly, though he noted it was likely not part of a Navy coordination.

“There’s an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean throwing airplanes off every twenty minutes. I don’t know,” Stern said. “I can tell you that nobody in the Navy said, ‘Don’t worry, brother, we sent two F-18s to cover you.’”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The maritime team successfully delivered Machado to safety. Stern said his team had also prepared for a possible air extraction, but that plan was abandoned after a last-minute change on Machado’s side. Instead, the final flight to Norway was arranged by her personal network using a friend’s private jet, culminating in her safe arrival.

Advertisement

While Grey Bull Rescue has conducted operations in high-threat environments such as Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and Haiti, Stern said the extraction of Machado was uniquely challenging, describing it as “overwhelmingly” the most complicated mission in the organization’s 800-mission history.

Continue Reading

World

South Korea indicts ex-leader Yoon over power plot provoking North

Published

on

South Korea indicts ex-leader Yoon over power plot provoking North

Jailed former president accused of a plot to provoke military aggression from North to help consolidate his rule.

Advertisement

Prosecutors have indicted former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol for insurrection, accusing him of seeking to provoke military aggression from North Korea to help consolidate his power.

Special prosecutor Cho Eun-seok told a briefing on Monday that his team had indicted Yoon, five former cabinet members, and 18 others on insurrection charges, following a six-month probe into his declaration of martial law last year.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“To create justification for declaring martial law, they tried to lure North Korea into mounting an armed aggression, but failed as North Korea did not respond militarily,” Cho said.

Yoon plunged South Korea into a crisis when he declared martial law in December 2024, prompting protesters and lawmakers to swarm parliament to force a vote against the measure.

Advertisement

The decree was quickly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and Yoon was subsequently impeached, removed from office, and jailed.

Martial law plotted for more than a year

Cho, one of three independent counsels appointed by South Korea’s current president, Lee Jae Myung, to investigate the martial law declaration, said Yoon and his supporters in the military had plotted since at least October 2023 to introduce the measure.

The plan involved installing collaborators in key military posts and removing a defence minister who opposed the scheme, Cho said.

The group even held dinner parties to build support for the plan among military leaders, he added.

Cho said Yoon, his Defence Minister Kim Yong Hyun, and Yeo In-hyung, commander of the military’s counterintelligence agency at the time, had directed military activities against North Korea since October 2024, seeking to provoke an aggressive response that would justify the declaration of martial law.

Advertisement

Yoon was indicted last month for ordering drone flights carrying propaganda leaflets into the North to inflame tensions – prompting his successor, Lee, to say earlier this month that he was weighing an apology to Pyongyang.

‘Antistate forces’

Cho said the provocations did not draw the expected reaction from North Korea, most likely because Pyongyang was tied up in supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine.

But Yoon pressed ahead regardless, he said, branding his political opponents – including the liberal-controlled legislature and the then-leader of his own conservative People Power Party – as “anti-state forces” in a bid to justify his actions.

Under South Korean law, insurrection is punishable by life in prison or the death penalty.

Yoon, who has been in jail since July following a stint in custody earlier in the year, insists that his martial law declaration was intended to draw public support for his fight against the opposition Democratic Party, which was abusing its control of parliament to cripple the work of the government.

Advertisement

“Yoon declared emergency martial law to monopolise and maintain power by taking control of the legislative and judiciary branches and eliminating his political opponents,” Cho said.

Continue Reading

Trending