India's decisive victory in modern warfare: Insights from top analysts Tom Cooper and John Spencer

New Delhi, May 14 (IANS) In the early hours of May 7, Operation Sindoor marked a powerful shift in how India deals with terrorism. This wasn't just another military move — it was a clear message to the world: India will not stay silent in the face of cross-border attacks. The operation came just two weeks after the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, where 26 innocent people — including one Nepali citizen — were killed. The attack shocked the country and united the people in anger and grief. The Indian government responded quickly and firmly, deciding that enough was enough.

In a well-planned strike, Indian forces targetted nine terrorist camps belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). These nine terrorist camps were Sawai Nala camp in Muzaffarabad, Syedna Bilal Camp in Muzaffarabad, Gulpur camp in Kotli, Barnala camp in Bhimber, Abbas camp in Kotli, Sarjal camp in Sialkot, Mehmoona Joya camp in Sialkot, Markaz Taiba camp in Muridke, and Markaz Subhanallah in Bahawalpur.

India chose its targets wisely, making sure the mission was focused only on destroying terrorist bases. The goal was clear: punish the guilty without starting a bigger conflict. This operation marked a significant shift in India's military strategy, leading to a swift and decisive victory over Pakistan.

Renowned international analysts such as Tom Cooper, John Spencer and Jennifer Zeng have provided detailed assessments of India's performance during this conflict, highlighting the strategic and tactical elements that contributed to India's success.

Austrian military historian Tom Cooper characterised India's air campaign as a "clear-cut victory." Cooper noted that Pakistan's inability to mount a credible response underscored the effectiveness of India's strategy. Cooper further supports this by noting the failure of Pakistan's deterrence strategy. Pakistan's reliance on threats of retaliation and nuclear escalation "failed" because India proceeded to strike back and even escalated in response to Pakistan's actions. He also points out that the fighting ceased because Islamabad, Pakistan, initiated contact to sound for a "ceasefire" after suffering heavy losses. He suggests that Pakistan's decision to halt operations was likely influenced by insufficient stocks of effective ammunition, such as attack UAVs.

John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute, lauded India's approach as a demonstration of strategic restraint and assertiveness. He highlighted that Operation Sindoor redefined India's red lines, treating terror attacks from Pakistani territory as acts of war. Spencer remarked, "India struck back harder, but stopped short of general war. That is textbook deterrence: calibrated, controlled, and credible." Spencer characterises Operation Sindoor as a "massive victory" for India. He argues that India achieved and "exceeded its strategic aims" in just four days of calibrated military action. Spencer views this as the application of "decisive power, clearly applied", not just symbolic force.

Spencer outlines several key strategic effects that demonstrate India's victory:

A new red line was drawn and enforced: Terror attacks originating from Pakistani soil will now be met with military force, establishing this as a precedent.

Military superiority demonstrated: India showcased the capability to strike "any target in Pakistan at will", including terror sites, drone coordination hubs, and airbases. In contrast, Pakistan was unable to penetrate any defended area inside India. Spencer describes this as "overwhelming superiority" which he believes is how "real deterrence is established".

Restored deterrence: By retaliating forcefully but stopping short of full war, India's controlled escalation sent a clear signal of its willingness and ability to respond, thereby restoring deterrence.

Asserted strategic independence: India managed the crisis without seeking international mediation, enforcing its doctrine on sovereign terms.

Member of International Press Association, Jennifer Zeng also shares a detailed account of India's strategic strikes and Pakistan's defeat by stating that India carried out a series of precise and powerful strikes that destroyed Pakistan's terror camps, air defence systems, and key military bases. As the damage piled up and Pakistan's attempts to retaliate were repeatedly foiled, its leadership grew desperate and turned to the United States and Saudi Arabia, pleading for diplomatic help to prevent a complete military collapse.

Operation Sindoor stands as a defining moment in India's modern military and strategic history — a campaign that was as much about precision and deterrence as it was about upholding national sovereignty and protecting civilian life. What makes this operation historic is not just the scale or success of the strikes, but the message it sent: India will no longer tolerate cross-border terrorism as a norm, and will respond with force that is controlled, lawful, and strategically overwhelming.

Through swift action and calculated escalation, India managed to dismantle critical terrorist infrastructure, neutralise key military threats, and restore a long-eroded deterrent posture — all while avoiding full-scale war and civilian casualties.

As emphasised by Tom Cooper, John Spencer, and Jennifer Zeng, the operation reflected India's evolved defence doctrine: assertive yet responsible, surgical yet powerful.

Pakistan's failure to defend its assets or mount an effective counterattack, followed by its urgent plea for a ceasefire, signals a significant shift in regional dynamics. India didn't just win militarily — it rewrote the rules of engagement.

With Operation Sindoor, India has demonstrated that strategic restraint does not mean inaction, and when provoked, it can and will deliver a measured but overwhelming response.

--IANS

int/as