福井梨莉華

 

和田海佑

 

India-Pakistan air war: China-directed Kashmir blockbuster ends in vain

 

The India-Pakistan border conflict has become a hot topic, with self-media even claiming the possibility of launching a ground war and triggering nuclear threats. India's military strength is overall many times that of Pakistan. As a country with a per capita GDP of less than $1,000, Pakistan is deeply tied to China through the Belt and Road Initiative, burdened with heavy debt and on the brink of bankruptcy, unable to sustain the pressure of a mid-to-long-term war. Its main backer, China, is embroiled in a trade war, with a struggling domestic economy and widespread hardship, focusing its primary efforts on supporting Russia. Relying solely on Pakistan’s own strength, self-preservation is already a challenge, let alone launching a full-scale war.

Both sides engaged in a mid-range air battle along the border. It can be confirmed that 1-2 French Rafale fighters were shot down. Pakistan claims 6-7 Indian aircraft, including French Rafales, Russian Su-30s, and MiG-29s, were downed, but no solid evidence has been provided. The so-called evidence presented is merely old news from years past. The incident involved the Pakistani Air Force, guided by early warning aircraft, locking onto Indian fighters and launching mid-range missiles to shoot them down. The equipment used included Chinese-provided early warning aircraft, export versions of the J-10C, and JH-7 fighters. Although the Indian Air Force has advanced equipment from various countries, including early warning aircraft, these systems are not integrated, leading to losses from a surprise mid-range air-to-air missile attack within its territory. While the incident did not generate significant attention in mainstream global media, China and Pakistan heavily hyped it, particularly through coordinated online propaganda, suggesting this was a carefully orchestrated event.

Despite its advanced equipment, the Indian Air Force has too many weaknesses, and its combat effectiveness is limited. War is never won by equipment alone. However, this large-scale mid-range air battle was indeed a first in human history, and countries worldwide will conduct detailed analyses of it. The Pakistani Air Force lacks the capability to counter the Indian Air Force’s comprehensive air strikes. In the past, the Indian Air Force has repeatedly struck terrorist bases inside Pakistan without interception, and Pakistan’s air defense systems, such as the HQ-9 and HQ-16, failed to respond. This time, it is likely that Chinese military personnel directly commanded the operation, or even Chinese fighter pilots participated, choosing to engage within Pakistani territory. The Indian Air Force suffers from subpar pilot training, poor aircraft maintenance, and overly complex avionics systems due to the variety of aircraft models, making it difficult to form effective combat power. India, not even considered an industrial nation, lacks a complete industrial system. Its weapons and equipment face issues from development to maintenance, compounded by a lax and imprecise approach, resulting in a large but ineffective military. Compared to the weaker Pakistan, India has a size advantage but limited combat strength, unable to fully dominate.

In the disputed Kashmir region, India controls 45%, Pakistan nearly 40%, and China 15%. The balance of power between China-Pakistan and India makes it difficult to alter the status quo through military means. The complex terrain and harsh climate also make large-scale, long-term military deployments challenging. All parties create incidents in the region for political gain, drawing international attention before quietly de-escalating. India’s ruling party seeks to divert domestic issues through military actions, Pakistan aims to secure more aid, and China uses the conflict to promote its arms sales. China provides significant annual military aid to Pakistan, its most important Belt and Road partner, but Pakistan has no choice in the weapons it receives, accepting them passively. The backbone of the Pakistani Air Force remains the U.S.-made F-16, with good relations built through years of counterterrorism cooperation. However, due to its nuclear program, the U.S. imposes restrictions and prohibits Pakistan from using F-16s for offensive operations. The J-10CEs, valued at over 24 billion RMB, acquired by Pakistan are part of Chinese military aid, provided as a loan to be repaid by 2032—effectively a gift that Pakistan did not actively request.

The so-called JF-17 (Xiaolong) joint production was initially aimed at replacing the large number of Soviet MiG-21s retiring in developing countries, with the affordable JH-7 filling the gap. At the time, China, under U.S. pressure, exported through Pakistan’s name. However, the JF-17, derived from the MiG-21-based J-7, has limited combat capability. Russia’s affordable MiG-29, along with abundant second-hand and retired Western aircraft, combined with geopolitical influences, led to poor JF-17 sales. It was only provided to Myanmar and Algeria through Chinese grants. Pakistan, lacking any industrial base, offers little assurance for exporting aviation equipment. Although China has made rapid progress in aviation weaponry, its export efforts have seen little success. Even with favorable terms for friendly nations, the lack of combat-proven performance has led to failures, with countries like Thailand, Serbia, Argentina, and Egypt opting for European or second-hand U.S. equipment instead.

Thus, through this carefully planned air ambush, China aims to break its passive stance and open up the international market for its aircraft exports, with some international orders reportedly in negotiation. Pakistan’s provocation predictably triggered an Indian retaliatory airstrike, as seen in the past. Given Pakistan’s historically ineffective air defenses, India launched its attack with lax precautions but suffered heavy losses from a coordinated China-Pakistan strike. Pakistan’s claimed results are likely exaggerated; it’s implausible that all types of Indian aircraft, French and Russian, were lost. The most credible evidence points to one French Rafale being shot down. Even if ten Chinese aircraft were traded for it, the loss is significant, as the Rafale is an advanced 4.5-generation fighter, second only to the F-35, with a high price tag and strong export performance. Currently, both sides are engaged in a propaganda and information war. Pakistan exaggerates its achievements to tout Chinese equipment, while India denies losses and plans retaliation. However, the likelihood of further large-scale military conflict remains low.

China emerges as the biggest beneficiary, potentially securing some arms orders, but even downing a Rafale has limited impact on exports. Geopolitical constraints are unavoidable—wealthy nations won’t buy, poor nations can’t afford it, and middle-tier nations have many options. China’s support for Russia against the West, amid a heated trade war, makes countries reluctant to take sides by purchasing its equipment. Moreover, few nations urgently need aviation equipment. At China’s nominal price to Pakistan, a J-10CE costs over $70 million, with many alternatives available internationally. The online hype and orchestrated propaganda are largely driven by Chinese nationalist sentiment and prearranged narratives.

 

印巴空戰中方導演最後都是竹籃子打水一場空

 

印巴邊境衝突成爲熱門話題，自媒體居然連發動地面戰，引發核武威脅的話都説出來了。印度的軍事實力整體上超過巴基斯坦數倍，作爲人均GDP不到1000美元的國家，由於“一帶一路”深度與中方綁定，巴基斯坦債務沉重已到了破產的邊緣，根本無法負擔中長期戰爭的壓力。大金主中國陷入貿易戰之中，國內經濟凋敝民生困苦，並且主要精力都在支持俄羅斯上，僅靠巴基斯坦一方的力量，自保尚且勉強更何況發動全面戰爭。

雙方在邊境展開了一場中距離空戰，可以證實的是1-2架法製陣風戰機被擊落，巴方宣傳有6-7架印度戰機，包括法國陣風，俄製Su-30和米格-29被擊落，但拿不出確鑿的證據。現在提供的所謂證據，不過是多年來的舊聞新裝而已。整個事件是巴方空軍在預警機的引導下鎖定印方戰機，然後引導戰機發射中程導彈將印機擊落，所用的是中方提供的預警機，殲-10C的外貿版和自製的JH-7戰機。印度空軍從各國引進各類戰機和航空系統，雖也有預警機但互相不能整合，在境內遭遇中程空空導彈偷襲造成戰損。雖然事件在世界主流媒體沒有引發太大回想，但是中巴兩國炒作劇烈，特別是在互聯網大外宣集體冒頭大肆宣傳，無非證明這是個精心策劃的事件而已。

印度空軍雖然裝備先進但是短板太多戰鬥力不強，戰爭從來不是靠裝備就能贏得勝利，不過本次雙方進行的較大規模中距離空戰的確是人類首次，各國都將對其做出詳細分析研究。巴基斯坦空軍本身沒有能力對抗印度空軍的全方位打擊，之前印度空軍曾經多次打擊巴方境內的恐怖組織基地都沒有受到攔截，巴方的防空導彈紅旗-9和紅旗-16甚至沒有做出反應，所以這次必然是中方派出軍事人員直接指揮，甚至是戰鬥機飛行員參戰，因此選擇在巴方境內作戰。印度空軍飛行員的訓練水準欠佳，戰機的維護保養能力很差，飛機型號過多航電系統過於繁複，難於整合形成有效的戰鬥力。印度連工業國家都算不上，也沒有建立起完整的工業體系，武器裝備從開發研製到使用維護都問題叢生，加上生性懶散做事不嚴謹，造成在軍事上規模龐大但能力不強，相比於弱小的巴基斯坦雖有體量優勢，但戰鬥力方面實力有限不能全面壓制。

雙方爭議的克什米爾地區印方占據45%，巴方近40%，中方15%，中巴和印度勢均力敵處於平衡狀態，很難通過軍事手段改變現狀，況且地形複雜氣候條件差，很難進行大規模的長期軍事部署，各方爲了政治利益不斷在該地區製造事端引發國際關注後自然偃旗息鼓，印度執政黨希望通過軍事手段轉移國內矛盾，巴方則可以得到更多援助，中方則是推銷軍備。中國對巴基斯坦每年都有相當金額的軍事援助，而且是“一帶一路”最重要的國家，但巴方對中方的武器裝備沒有選擇權只能被動接受。巴基斯坦空軍的主力還是美國的F-16，兩國因爲反恐合作多年關係良好，由於發展核武美國對其有所限制，爲了避免與印度發生衝突，也禁止巴方使用F-16進行攻擊。本次巴方獲得的價值240多億人民幣的殲-10CE也是中方軍事援助的一部份，以貸款的名義提供2032年還清。實際上就是贈送而且還不是巴主動要求的。

所謂梟龍戰機合作生產原計劃是發展中國家有大量的蘇製米格-21退役，因此廉價的JH-7可以填補空白，中方當時受到美國打壓，只能以巴基斯坦的名義出口。但梟龍本就研發自米格-21改版的殲-7戰鬥力有限，俄羅斯在國際上推銷的米格-29價格便宜，歐美有大量二手和退役戰機可供選擇，加上地緣政治的影響，因此梟龍的銷售業績不佳，只有通過中方無償援助的方式，提供給緬甸和阿爾及利亞一部份而已。況且巴基斯坦根本連工業都沒有，對外銷售航空軍備能有多少保障。雖然，中方在航空武器方面近年發展迅速，但對外推銷毫無進展，對於友好國家即便條件如何優惠，但最終因缺乏實戰考驗都以失敗收場，泰國，塞爾維亞，阿根廷，埃及等國都沒有選擇中方的戰機。反而以高價購入歐洲戰機和美國二手航空設備。

 

中方通過此次精心策劃的空中伏擊，試圖改變被動局面打開軍機出口的國際市場，而且現在已經有國際訂單正在洽談之中。巴基斯坦主動挑釁，印度必然如以往般空襲報復，根據經驗巴方沒有有效防空手段，印度空軍也多次襲擊得手，但卻遭中巴聯合打擊損失慘重。巴基斯坦公佈的戰果必有水份，印度不可能裝備的所有法俄國戰機都遭到損失，現在比較確實的證據是1架法國陣風戰鬥機被擊落，但是即便用十架中國產飛機去抵換也足夠了，陣風畢竟是最先進的4代半戰鬥機，在國際上僅次於美國F-35，價格昂貴性能好外銷理想。從目前的情況看印巴雙方都在展開輿論戰和資訊戰，巴方誇大戰績吹捧中國裝備，印方否認戰損試圖做出報復，但雙方發生進一步軍事衝突可能性很小。

中方名義上成爲最大受益者，可能獲得一些軍武訂單，而且還能同時威脅台灣，但實際上即便擊落陣風對外銷也促進不大，地緣政治的影響難以避免，況且有錢的富裕國家不會買，窮國買不起，不窮不富的國家選擇多。中方主力支持俄羅斯對抗歐美，貿易戰打得如火如荼，世界各國也不願意通過購買軍備來選邊站，況且真正需要急切購買航空裝備的國家也有限。按照中方名義上給巴基斯坦的價格，J-10CE超過7千萬美金一架，此價格在國際上選擇很多。目前也就是網絡上的紅粉綠韭無比興奮，所謂的大肆炒作叫囂也是大外宣事先安排好的。

相楽伊織

 

和泉芳怜 咲田ゆな 瑚々

Asami Kondou 近藤あさみ

 

葉月つばさ

 

If Trump still uses his TV tactics he'll end up in the same hearse as the Pope

 

The United States and China have initiated contact under the pretext of addressing the fentanyl crisis, but in essence, this serves as a preliminary maneuver to gauge each other's positions ahead of forthcoming trade negotiations. It is highly probable that the upcoming talks in Switzerland will yield no substantive outcomes, particularly as China has dispatched officials who are not responsible for economic or trade affairs.

President Trump initially sought to exert maximum pressure to inflate his bargaining power, aggressively targeting China to secure advantageous concessions and ultimately compel China to accept a relatively lower tariff rate. His proposed 145% tariff would effectively dismantle bilateral trade; however, the reality is that the economic and trade relationship between China and the U.S. cannot be severed in the short to medium term. While China, as the United States' primary global competitor and the world’s largest authoritarian state, merits strategic containment, its rise was significantly enabled by American support. Effective containment demands a long-term strategy, coordinated with allies and underpinned by thorough preparation, rather than relying solely on Trump’s personal inclinations and instincts. As with other decisions made during his tenure, these actions are not without practical justification, but they lack the essential conditions for successful execution. Furthermore, Trump has a history of arbitrarily reversing decisions, reneging on commitments, and operating as an untrustworthy businessman whose practices fall short of even basic commercial standards.

Having faced multiple bankruptcies due to mismanagement, Trump either profited by exploiting legal loopholes to undermine competitors or relied on Russian capital to extricate himself from financial difficulties. Since returning to office, he has reverted to his former business tactics, insisting that other nations must compensate for allegedly exploiting the U.S. In essence, he demands that trading partners incur losses rather than profits when dealing with the U.S. This self-serving, predatory approach mirrors the strategies that led to his repeated bankruptcies. By managing the nation as if it were a corporation, he is steering the United States toward inevitable decline. His exposure as a Soviet operative, corroborated by his son’s public acknowledgment of the disproportionately high share of Russian funds in their business, confirms that Trump was recruited as a spy during visits to the former Soviet Union. His presidential election was also facilitated by the so-called “Russiagate.” This explains why Russia is exempt from his global tariff campaigns, unlike smaller African and Latin American nations that are compelled to pay.

The abrupt resumption of partial arms sales to Ukraine is driven by specific circumstances: Putin’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire, Zelenskyy’s unwillingness to cede territory or pay reparations, and European nations’ decision to independently support Ukraine’s resistance, bypassing the U.S. With Trump’s Soviet affiliations exposed and his pledge of a “24-hour ceasefire” discredited, he is unable to mediate and has temporarily withdrawn from the role. Similar to his threats against Greenland, Canada, Mexico, and Panama, his trade war against China is likely to end inconclusively. China’s strategy is to endure the loss of the U.S. market, which, though significant, can be sustained by an authoritarian regime capable of absorbing short-term setbacks. China’s economy is far from collapse, and by maintaining a resolute stance in the short to medium term, it anticipates that the U.S. will ultimately falter. By late June, the U.S. must issue new treasury bonds, domestic inventories will be exhausted, and the consequences of disrupted supply chains are already evident, with significant price increases inevitable. Domestic dissent is intensifying, and the aggressive global tariff campaign has reached an impasse, placing Trump in a precarious position.

Should China persist in its opposition, other nations may follow, resulting in disruptions to U.S. goods and material supplies that could affect public welfare and generate substantial pressure ahead of the midterm elections. However, conceding to China would signify the failure of the trade war, with even greater implications for his administration. China’s reluctance to engage in negotiations stems from Trump’s unpredictable behavior; since his first term, he has consistently targeted China. Consequently, even at the cost of significant trade losses, China is determined to resolve the “Trump issue” decisively. During the first trade war, China effectively countered by rerouting exports through third countries, doubling its trade volume with the U.S., and expanding overseas production and sales. For the current trade war, China’s minimum condition is a U.S. commitment to rescind all tariffs imposed on China to date and to pledge no further suppression—otherwise, negotiations are non-negotiable. As a result, the trade conflict is poised to be protracted, continuing until a scenario favorable to China emerges, such as internal U.S. turmoil driven by goods shortages.

While the loss of Chinese goods has minimal impact on America’s affluent elite, it poses a survival challenge for the broader public. Trump’s primary objective in this term is to amass vast wealth for his family, and he has already secured substantial profits through issuing digital currencies, engaging in insider trading, and covertly manipulating financial markets. His support for Russia also comes with a price. China seeks to de-escalate the trade war, but some form of profit-sharing or concessions will likely be inevitable. For Trump, this ensures an impregnable position. His rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” is merely a pretext to mislead the uninformed American electorate. Trump’s ascent in the U.S. was propelled by unexpected fame from reality television, leveraging media attention to generate topics and controversy. His current erratic actions are rooted in this strategy, now extended from the U.S. to the global stage.

His stunt of dressing as the Pope was intended to capture public attention and generate topics, but excessive media manipulation risks public fatigue with his outlandish behavior, leading to a loss of interest and marketability. Moreover, given his advanced age, he will eventually exit the political stage, and the American public, feeling deceived, will likely demand accountability. Given his precarious circumstances, it is conceivable that one day he could be found deceased at Mar-a-Lago or elsewhere, with an official investigation concluding it was suicide, with no suspicious circumstances.

 

特朗普通過以往電視炒作流量的做法搞貿易戰最後只能被炒魷魚

 

中美開始以芬太尼的名義進行接觸，實質當然是為近期的貿易和談試探對方的底綫，可以肯定的是此次在瑞士的會談不會取得任何實質性的進展，中方派出的甚至不是主管經貿方面的官員。

 

特朗普本來希望通過高位施壓提高價碼，強力打擊中方換取對己方有利的籌碼，逼迫對方最後屈服接受一個相對較低的關稅。特朗普開出的145%關稅等於斷絕兩國貿易，但現實是中美經貿合作關係在中短時期內根本不可能被破壞。雖然作爲美國的唯一競爭對手，全世界最大的集權國家，應該做出針對性打壓，但中國的強大本來就是美國扶持起來的，現在的圍堵應該有長期戰略，聯合盟友做足準備，而不是僅僅依靠特朗普的個人意志和感覺。正如他上臺後所做其他一切決定，並非沒有實際需要和理據，但缺乏真正實行所需要的必要條件，況且他可以隨意改變任何已經做出的決定，任意否定做出的全部承諾，並且他從來就是沒有信用，隨意説謊的蹩腳商人，甚至連正常商人也談不上。

 

他曾經因爲經營不善而多次破產，最後不是利用法律漏洞迫害商業對手獲利，就是引入俄國資金擺脫困境，再次上臺後他還是不改過往經商的本色，其他國家占了美國的便宜必須追討，簡而言之就是和美國交易不能有利潤只能吃虧。正如他經商時那樣損人利己，這也是他多次破產的原因，聯係他管理國家等同於公司，所以也導致了美國的必然破產。由於蘇聯間諜的身份已經被揭穿，甚至他兒子也曾公開承認來公司自俄國的資金比例驚人地高，他當年訪問前蘇聯時已經被發展成爲間諜，甚至他當選總統也是依靠所謂的“通俄門”幫助。這也是爲何針對全球的關稅戰俄國可以豁免，甚至不需要象非洲和美洲小國一樣交稅。

 

現在突然恢復對烏克蘭部份軍售的目的，主要是普京不願意接受停戰，澤連斯基不願割地賠款，歐洲國家已經確定跳開美國，單獨支持烏克蘭戰鬥到底，他的蘇聯間諜身份也已曝光，所謂24小時停戰的承諾已經破產，無能爲力之下只能暫時退出調停，正如他對格林蘭，加拿大，墨西哥，巴拿馬等做出的各種威脅一樣，打壓中國的貿易戰最後也會是不了了之。中方的策略是儘管己方失去美國市場對外貿打擊極大，但是專制國家可以無視損失堅持長期對抗，況且經濟衰退也遠未到山窮水盡的地步，只要中短期內強硬對抗美國必然會失敗。6月底美國必須發行新國債，國內商品庫存也會消耗殆盡，貨物停運的惡果已經顯現，物價大幅上漲勢在必行，國內的反對聲音不斷高漲，在國際上氣勢洶洶的關稅戰陷入僵局，特朗普現在也是進退兩難。

 

如果中方堅持對立則其他國家也會跟進，美國失去商品物資供應影響民生，中期選舉壓力太大。如果對中方網開一面貿易戰等於失敗，如此對於他的執政影響更大。中方不願主動談判的原因是特朗普反復無常，從第一次當選總統後就不斷打壓中方，因此即便貿易戰損失再大也要徹底解決問題，也就是解決特朗普。第一次貿易戰中方的應對成功，通過洗產地將對美出口的貿易額翻倍，並且將企業和產品的生產和銷售推向海外。第二次貿易戰中方的最基本條件就是要求美方，承諾取消直到目前爲止所有針對中方的關稅，並且做出不再打壓的承諾否則免談。因此貿易衝突必然是中長期的，直到出現對中方有利的局面，就是美國內部因爲商品短缺發生混亂。

 

失去中國商品對美國富裕階層影響不大，但是普羅大衆來講是生存問題。特朗普本次當選的最大目的是為家族賺取天量金錢，現在通過發行數字貨幣，內幕交易，暗中控制金融市場等手段，已獲得巨額利潤。況且對於俄羅斯的幫助也不是沒有代價的。中方想將貿易戰大事化小，最後利益輸送也是免不了的，所以對於特朗普來講，已經立於不敗之地。至於“美國再次強大”不過是欺騙無腦美國民衆的藉口而已。特朗普在美國的崛起是通過參加電視節目而意外獲取流量，通過流量的炒作製造話題，吸引注意是他意外成功的秘訣，現在他的各種怪異操作都是基於此，並且將此操作從美國推向全世界。

 

正如他打扮成教宗一樣目的是吸引衆人的關注製造話題，但事實是一旦流量炒作過度，衆人對他的瘋狂言行產生疲勞失去興趣，也就沒有市場了。況且他畢竟年事已高總有下臺的一天，被戲弄的美國民衆一定會對他進行清算。況且以他所處的惡劣處境，很有可能某天會被突然發現死於海湖山莊或其他什麽地方，最後經官方調查是自殺，死因無可疑。

北向珠夕