'Pakistan lost with Chinese arms': Top military analyst breaks down India’s 'Atmanirbhar' strike
Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, called the operation a “strategic debut” for India’s indigenously developed arsenal—products of the Modi government’s “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” defense policies.
- May 30, 2025,
- Updated May 30, 2025 8:32 PM IST
India’s April 22 strike wasn’t just retaliation—it was a live-fire audit of two defense doctrines. And for John Spencer, one of the world’s top military analysts, the outcome was unmistakable: “India fought as a sovereign power. Pakistan fought as a proxy—and lost.”
Operation Sindoor followed a Pakistan-backed terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Jammu and Kashmir’s Baisaran Valley. The Indian response, Spencer wrote, was “a multidomain campaign executed with precision tools India designed, built, and deployed with unmatched battlefield control.”
Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, called the operation a “strategic debut” for India’s indigenously developed arsenal—products of the Modi government’s “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” defense policies.
He listed India’s weaponry in detail: the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, which he noted is “among the fastest and most accurate in the world”; the Akash SAMs, paired with the AI-powered Akashteer command system for air defense; and the Rudram-1 anti-radiation missile, “a game-changing tool that neutralized Pakistani radar networks.”
India’s Netra AEW&C aircraft, Spencer said, “functioned as the eye in the sky—tracking enemy aircraft and vectoring Indian strike missions with real-time accuracy.” He described the loitering munitions, SkyStriker and Harop, as “cost-effective, kamikaze drones that delivered pinpoint strikes with minimal collateral damage.”
On the other side of the border, Spencer argued, Pakistan fielded a force “built on Chinese exports—platforms made for global sale, not battlefield dominance.” He said the JF-17 fighter jet was “unable to establish air superiority,” while Chinese-made HQ-9 and HQ-16 air defense systems “failed to detect or intercept Indian missiles under jamming pressure.”
Spencer noted that Pakistan’s Swedish Saab 2000 AEW&C aircraft was destroyed early in the campaign, “crippling its command and control functions.” He also pointed to reports that Turkey had to send drone operators to keep Pakistan’s CH-4 UAVs in the air—“a clear sign of both equipment and personnel dependency.”
“This wasn’t just retaliation,” he wrote. “It was a referendum on technological sovereignty. India passed. Pakistan failed.”
Markets responded accordingly. Spencer highlighted that Paras Defence & Space jumped 49% in May, while Chinese defense giants like AVIC and NORINCO saw steep drops.
“India didn’t just fight,” Spencer concluded. “It proved Atmanirbhar Bharat works—in war.”
India’s April 22 strike wasn’t just retaliation—it was a live-fire audit of two defense doctrines. And for John Spencer, one of the world’s top military analysts, the outcome was unmistakable: “India fought as a sovereign power. Pakistan fought as a proxy—and lost.”
Operation Sindoor followed a Pakistan-backed terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Jammu and Kashmir’s Baisaran Valley. The Indian response, Spencer wrote, was “a multidomain campaign executed with precision tools India designed, built, and deployed with unmatched battlefield control.”
Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, called the operation a “strategic debut” for India’s indigenously developed arsenal—products of the Modi government’s “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” defense policies.
He listed India’s weaponry in detail: the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, which he noted is “among the fastest and most accurate in the world”; the Akash SAMs, paired with the AI-powered Akashteer command system for air defense; and the Rudram-1 anti-radiation missile, “a game-changing tool that neutralized Pakistani radar networks.”
India’s Netra AEW&C aircraft, Spencer said, “functioned as the eye in the sky—tracking enemy aircraft and vectoring Indian strike missions with real-time accuracy.” He described the loitering munitions, SkyStriker and Harop, as “cost-effective, kamikaze drones that delivered pinpoint strikes with minimal collateral damage.”
On the other side of the border, Spencer argued, Pakistan fielded a force “built on Chinese exports—platforms made for global sale, not battlefield dominance.” He said the JF-17 fighter jet was “unable to establish air superiority,” while Chinese-made HQ-9 and HQ-16 air defense systems “failed to detect or intercept Indian missiles under jamming pressure.”
Spencer noted that Pakistan’s Swedish Saab 2000 AEW&C aircraft was destroyed early in the campaign, “crippling its command and control functions.” He also pointed to reports that Turkey had to send drone operators to keep Pakistan’s CH-4 UAVs in the air—“a clear sign of both equipment and personnel dependency.”
“This wasn’t just retaliation,” he wrote. “It was a referendum on technological sovereignty. India passed. Pakistan failed.”
Markets responded accordingly. Spencer highlighted that Paras Defence & Space jumped 49% in May, while Chinese defense giants like AVIC and NORINCO saw steep drops.
“India didn’t just fight,” Spencer concluded. “It proved Atmanirbhar Bharat works—in war.”