0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,250 $

As Indian-Pakistani Conflict Develops, Sides Are More And More Engaged In Propaganda War

Support SouthFront

As Indian-Pakistani Conflict Develops, Sides Are More And More Engaged In Propaganda War

Click to see the full-size image

As the Indo-Pakistani conflict continues to develop on the contact line in the contested Jammu and Kashmir region, the two sides also appear to be engaged in a propaganda war.

Evaluating the situation in English-language mainstream media, it can be found that the Indian side is employing active military informational operations in order to promote own agenda in the conflict. One of the obvious examples of this is the claim that India shot down a Pakistani warplane during the February 27 encounter. Inside India, multiple media outlets, which are more or less affilated with the governmetn, are openly fueling a war hysteria.

However, at the same time, a notable part of the Indian society is sceptical regarding the government stance and obviously seeks a de-escalation of the conflcit. This can be obs observed in the social media.

It’s interesting to note that a similar situation can be observed on the Pakistani side. Islamabad is also conducting special media operations and using fakes; for example the claim about the second downed Indian jet and second pilot, who has never been captured. However, Pakistan is less successful in its efforts on the international scene. Therefore, by February 28, it had re-shaped its approach and started using more factual-based coverage of the conflict and debunking Indian propaganda.

A part of the Pakistani society also appears to be not interested in the war.

Despite the aforementioned sceptical views in both Indian and Pakistani societies, Indian and Pakistani populists are attempting to use the recent escalation to gain more influence. This approach is fueling the already high tensions.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

I allways laugh at those you-have-one-we-have-two-therefore-we-are-the-best charts…

Those numbers does not mean a thing, skills, training and correct use is what matters.

And they dont say what kind of ordnance those planes are carrying, if any, at that range, and its called combat radius, not combat range. Combat range is how far you can fly in a straight line, combat radius is how far out your targets can be, and still get back to base, the difference is huge.


yes! but mine is bigger than yours!!!

Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

But do you know how to use it? ;)

Peter Moy

You are absolutely correct. A more realistic assessment of a combat aircraft is the amount of payload (bombs, rockets, air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles) minus external fuel tanks and the actual radius of action. There is a mistake in the aircraft description (maybe a typo): it is “Mirage 2000” and not “200.” It is obvious that the originator of this graphic is no realistic analyst or expert.

Brian Michael Bo Pedersen

Well spotted about the Mirage and i fully agree with you.

I leaning mostly to someone during a quick wikipedia without any kind of knowledge of how specifications are calculated (or the subject; military aircraft, for that matter); max range is without any ordnance at optimal altitude and throttle settings, i.e. a pretty useless number in any real combat situation.

And the poster says “Unfuelled combat range with droptanks” If we take the F-16; it can carry three droptanks, is this with all three? And if they aircrafts are “unfuelled” they dont get out the HAS anyway (They most likely meant no AAR/IFR, but the author clearly dont know the subject well enough)



Zionism = EVIL

Obviously, the PAF used the F-16’s as it is their air superiority fighter.

Zionism = EVIL

Pakistan has the edge in superior training of its pilots.

Dear Russia… Why was American tech able to shoot down Russian supplied tech? But Russian supplied tech targeted American tech and no American plane wreckage? I think you know why. Dear Russia, stop selling your allies crap. Start selling top of the line stuff that works. S-300 junk. Only sell S-400’s and better air to air missiles. I am tired of looking at the history of engagements and seeing US stuff in allied hands defeat Russia’s allies with Russian tech. #1 Russian supplies Libya lost to US armed groups. #2 Russian supplied Serbia lost to US armed groups. #3 Russian supplied Iraq lost to lost to US armed groups. #4 Russian supplied Egypt lost to US armed groups. I care about you Russia. That is why I want you to take better care of your allies.

Brother Thomas

Dear Caring Friend of Russia

Why do you suppose the US has such a difficult time winning wars using its own weapons? Their record is dismal starting with the Korean war in the 1950’s, right up to their defeat in Syria.

Thank you for your insights.


All the four happened at a time when Russia was on its knees. But if you talk about Daesh as “armed groups” then you need to say US supplied Iraq lost to US armed groups (this last being doubtful as they used mainly Kalashnikovs!). Libya and Serbia both had a “no-fly zone” imposed which disadvantaged them. And Iraq had oil (remember the original name was Operation Iraqi Liberation! An in-joke that said it all, and was changed because of that.)


For those dissing the Indians for still using upgraded MiG-21’s, the Pakistani Mirage III/V is also from the same era, two generations older then the Indian Mirage 2000, and apparently absolutely vital to Pakistan as a nuclear strike aircraft. Also why the infograph says that the Pakistani F-16 and Mirage III/V have been deployed since 1998 is bull, as Pakistan got their Mirages around the early 70’s and F-16’s in the early 80’s. Unless they mean that was the time that they were assigned their nuclear roles.


The Great Butter Battle


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x