‘India dictated the fight’: Study details why Pakistan had little choice but to de-escalate in Op Sindoor

Operation Sindoor

• India retained escalation dominance in the May 2025 air conflict with Pakistan
• Indian air-defense assets, including S-400 systems, stayed secure and functional.
• India's strikes impaired Pakistan's radar and airspace awareness.

Did our AI summary help?

India retained escalation dominance and successfully shielded its most critical air-defence assets during the four-day air conflict with Pakistan in May 2025, according to a detailed European military assessment that says New Delhi controlled both the pace and the limits of the confrontation.

The analysis, titled “Operation Sindoor: The India-Pakistan Air War (7–10 May 2025)”, has been authored by military historian Adrien Fontanellaz and published by the Switzerland-based Centre d’Histoire et de Prospective Militaires (CHPM).

The independent research institution, founded in 1969, positions itself as a neutral forum for professional military studies and lessons-learned analysis.

The report was reviewed by a committee that includes retired Swiss Air Force Major General Claude Meier and Paris-based strategic analyst Joseph Henrotin, among others.

According to the study, India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack marked a clear departure from earlier crisis-management patterns.

Under political authorisation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indian forces struck Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba infrastructure deep inside Pakistani territory, while being granted operational freedom to manage escalation.

Long-range precision weapons were used, but most Indian aircraft remained within national airspace, signalling intent while limiting risk.

The report notes that Indian preparations for large-scale drone and missile attacks had begun even before the first strikes. Counter-drone and air-defence exercises conducted in late April 2025 played a key role in blunting Pakistan’s subsequent drone and missile waves.

Pakistan responded with multiple waves of drones, rockets, missiles and limited air operations, primarily targeting Indian air bases and air-defence systems. However, the study concludes that these attacks failed to meaningfully degrade India’s layered air-defence network. Indian surface-to-air missile units remained mobile, operated under strict emission control, and repeatedly denied Pakistani forces reliable targeting data.

Crucially, the report says there is no verified evidence that any Indian S-400 air-defence battery was destroyed or rendered inoperative. While Pakistan claimed that a JF-17 fighter hit an S-400 system at Adampur using CM-400AKG missiles, the study found no independent satellite imagery or open-source evidence to support the claim. The continued presence of the S-400 systems forced Pakistani aircraft to operate from greater distances throughout the conflict.

The analysis also finds that Indian strikes and electronic actions significantly degraded Pakistan’s airspace awareness. Several Pakistani radar systems were forced to shut down or restrict emissions, while reliance on airborne early-warning platforms failed to deliver a sustained operational advantage. As the conflict progressed, Pakistan’s ability to coordinate air and drone operations steadily weakened.

The decisive moment came on 10 May, when India launched coordinated long-range missile strikes using BrahMos, SCALP-EG and Rampage missiles against multiple Pakistani air bases up to 200 kilometres inside Pakistani territory. Targets included command-and-control nodes, drone facilities, hangars and runways.

All strikes were launched from within Indian airspace, sharply limiting Pakistan’s ability to continue large-scale air and drone operations.

Some strikes were carried out close to strategically sensitive locations, underscoring India’s ability to operate near higher escalation thresholds. At the same time, the report notes, India deliberately restrained the overall scope of its actions, combining capability with control. This balance is described as a stabilising factor rather than a vulnerability.

Following the deep strikes, Pakistan did not respond with attacks of comparable scale or depth, and the escalation cycle ended without external mediation.

The study concludes that India achieved escalation dominance by demonstrating both the willingness and the capacity to impose higher costs while retaining control over further escalation.

The report also highlights widespread overclaiming by both sides regarding aircraft losses, a common feature of modern air warfare shaped by long-range engagements and electronic warfare. After accounting for these exaggerations, the analysis finds that Indian operations imposed more significant and lasting operational constraints on Pakistan.